Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How will Trump Change the Chinese Trade Imbalance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The problem is, that China gets used to buying US coal and reduces their home mining of it. If the US concurrently moves away from solar (in particular) and Chinese PV panels are no longer mass imported, then that industry shrinks in China too.
    Then in a decade or so, you jack up the price of coal and watch China flounder around trying to restart their coal industry. Mining as a global resource extraction generally goes through boom and bust periods. The thing the US should do is try and influence when those happen in resources they have an abundance of with those they have political rivalries with.
    Trade is not a zero sum gain. If the US can produce coal cheaper than china why should the Chinese mine their own? Better to use their scare resources to something more profitable. The US should export coal to China for as long as it is profitable to do so. If the US doesn't want to buy solar any more for whatever reason China will just make something else. That's how the free market works. It responds to what people want. It is the ultimate in democracy.
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Surrey View Post
      If the Us sells coal to China for cheaper than the Chinese can dig it then both China and the US will gain. That's how trade works.
      How do you figure an American miner to be cheaper than a Chinese miner? It's not going to happen.
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        How do you figure an American miner to be cheaper than a Chinese miner? It's not going to happen.
        Red China imports coal because they can't economically mine enough of their own coal to meet their own consumption...
        Tue Nov 1, 2016 | 6:11 AM EDT

        China's coal imports surge again, but how long can the party last?: Russell

        By Clyde Russell | LAUNCESTON, AUSTRALIA

        China's imports of coal from the seaborne market surged again in October, thereby justifying the jump in prices but also raising questions as to how much more of the fuel the world's top buyer can suck in.

        Seaborne coal imports were 20.03 million tonnes for October, according to vessel-tracking and port data compiled by Thomson Reuters Supply Chain and Commodity Forecasts.

        This is the highest monthly total since Thomson Reuters stated assessing the data in January 2015, and shows that China's appetite for imports remains undiminished in spite of a spike in the prices of both thermal and coking coal.

        [...]

        http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12W3LM

        Red China plans to increase its coal consumption...
        China Says It's Going to Use More Coal, With Capacity Set to Grow 19%

        by Aibing Guo
        November 7, 2016

        China’s coal power generation capacity will grow as much as 19 percent over the next five years even as the world’s biggest energy consumer expands use of non-fossil fuels.

        [...]

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...in-5-year-plan

        Red China consumes more coal than they produce. We have the capacity to produce much more coal than we consume.

        If Red China can buy coal from Australia, they can buy it from us.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Red China imports coal because they can't economically mine enough of their own coal to meet their own consumption...
          Tue Nov 1, 2016 | 6:11 AM EDT

          China's coal imports surge again, but how long can the party last?: Russell

          By Clyde Russell | LAUNCESTON, AUSTRALIA

          China's imports of coal from the seaborne market surged again in October, thereby justifying the jump in prices but also raising questions as to how much more of the fuel the world's top buyer can suck in.

          Seaborne coal imports were 20.03 million tonnes for October, according to vessel-tracking and port data compiled by Thomson Reuters Supply Chain and Commodity Forecasts.

          This is the highest monthly total since Thomson Reuters stated assessing the data in January 2015, and shows that China's appetite for imports remains undiminished in spite of a spike in the prices of both thermal and coking coal.

          [...]

          http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12W3LM

          Red China plans to increase its coal consumption...
          China Says It's Going to Use More Coal, With Capacity Set to Grow 19%

          by Aibing Guo
          November 7, 2016

          China’s coal power generation capacity will grow as much as 19 percent over the next five years even as the world’s biggest energy consumer expands use of non-fossil fuels.

          [...]

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...in-5-year-plan

          Red China consumes more coal than they produce. We have the capacity to produce much more coal than we consume.

          If Red China can buy coal from Australia, they can buy it from us.
          Then you just have to make your coal cheaper than Australia's. unless Australia is also at capacity? In which case you have to beat whoever is next.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post
            Then you just have to make your coal cheaper than Australia's. unless Australia is also at capacity? In which case you have to beat whoever is next.
            As of 2012, Red China imported 4% of its coal from the US...



            Commodities markets determine the price of coal. However, our Federal government willfully obstructs the export of coal and LNG...
            Jun 18, 2013 Press Release
            Red Tape, Litigation Blocking Energy Exports and U.S. Job Creation

            WASHINGTON, DC – The Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), today continued its look into opportunities to expand U.S. energy exports with a hearing focused on regulatory, market, and legal barriers to the export of American coal and natural gas. America is entering a new age of energy abundance thanks to technological innovations and is now poised to become a leading global energy supplier. However, regulatory hurdles, outdated policies, and litigious environmental activists are preventing important energy export opportunities that could help create jobs, strengthen the economy, and improve America’s trade balance.

            "The reality is that market forces will determine the amount and to what extent we export our energy from the U.S. Policies that delay or prevent energy exports are detrimental to energy producing states like Kentucky, and they hurt the nation as a whole," said Whitfield. "Instead of arbitrary and irrational barriers placed on U.S. exports by the federal government, the U.S. can be a global energy leader by exporting affordable and reliable energy to poverty stricken countries that would otherwise have no electricity. I have concerns that the approval process for these export projects is not a balanced one as it clearly should be, especially in light of the opportunities before us."

            The panel heard from government and industry witnesses about a range of barriers and obstacles present for the export of coal and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), including Department of Energy delays in approving new LNG export licenses, LNG infrastructure permitting delays at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and delayed permitting of new coal export facilities resulting from red tape and litigation stemming from the National Environmental Policy Act.

            [...]

            https://energycommerce.house.gov/new...al-gas-exports

            With the Federal and some State governments actively obstructing the production and exporting of coal and LNG, we can't even begin to compete for Red China's energy market. The problem is compounded by the fact that Enviromarxist terrorist groups, often funded by the EPA, are allowed to file an endless series of junk lawsuits against energy producers and the relevant permitting agencies.
            Last edited by The Doctor; 23 Dec 16, 08:48.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #21
              Only if he has government over watch on places such as Wal Mart whose inventory is over 50% made in China. rots of ruck
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                As of 2012, Red China imported 4% of its coal from the US...



                Commodities markets determine the price of coal. However, our Federal government willfully obstructs the export of coal and LNG...
                Jun 18, 2013 Press Release
                Red Tape, Litigation Blocking Energy Exports and U.S. Job Creation

                WASHINGTON, DC – The Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), today continued its look into opportunities to expand U.S. energy exports with a hearing focused on regulatory, market, and legal barriers to the export of American coal and natural gas. America is entering a new age of energy abundance thanks to technological innovations and is now poised to become a leading global energy supplier. However, regulatory hurdles, outdated policies, and litigious environmental activists are preventing important energy export opportunities that could help create jobs, strengthen the economy, and improve America’s trade balance.

                "The reality is that market forces will determine the amount and to what extent we export our energy from the U.S. Policies that delay or prevent energy exports are detrimental to energy producing states like Kentucky, and they hurt the nation as a whole," said Whitfield. "Instead of arbitrary and irrational barriers placed on U.S. exports by the federal government, the U.S. can be a global energy leader by exporting affordable and reliable energy to poverty stricken countries that would otherwise have no electricity. I have concerns that the approval process for these export projects is not a balanced one as it clearly should be, especially in light of the opportunities before us."

                The panel heard from government and industry witnesses about a range of barriers and obstacles present for the export of coal and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), including Department of Energy delays in approving new LNG export licenses, LNG infrastructure permitting delays at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and delayed permitting of new coal export facilities resulting from red tape and litigation stemming from the National Environmental Policy Act.

                [...]

                https://energycommerce.house.gov/new...al-gas-exports

                With the Federal and some State governments actively obstructing the production and exporting of coal and LNG, we can't even begin to compete for Red China's energy market. The problem is compounded by the fact that Enviromarxist terrorist groups, often funded by the EPA, are allowed to file an endless series of junk lawsuits against energy producers and the relevant permitting agencies.

                So you problem isn't that China won't buy US coal but that the US won't sell it.
                Madness. If the US increased its coal exports to China the US gains through the income received, jobs created, boost to the economy etc. China gains because it gets more coal that enables it to produce more cheap goods that it sells to the world including the US. Gets income back to buy expensive stuff and services from the West including the Us and so on. Creates a virtuos circle with everyone gaining, living standards rising poverty alleviated, international tensions eased etc.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                  Trump was right about our leaders making bad deals. It got worse under Obama.

                  http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3097.shtml

                  Any thoughts on how Trump will make the Chinese more import friendly and less demanding of intellectual property?
                  I disagree, it got worse thanks to American corporations, consumers, politicians, etcetera. To be clear, I am not absolving anyone here, including Obama. However, the old excuse that manufacturing jobs in China is necessary because of American ............ (insert taxes, labor costs, what ever) is disingenuous. We import goods from China because it increases corporate profits. I completely agree that China is not import friendly and could not care less about intellectual property. I can also add that China manipulates its currency to make it goods more attractive for export. However, we have admit that we have all played a role in the trade imbalance. From the consumer that is happy to save ten cents on a towel even though it is stamped "Made in the PRC" to the corporate CEO that shipped jobs overseas so that he/she can maintain his/her $10 million a year salary by paying Chinese workers $1.75 per hour. So, will the Chump be able to fix this? Let's just say that I will not be holding my breath.
                  Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                  Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                  Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                    So you problem isn't that China won't buy US coal but that the US won't sell it.
                    Madness. If the US increased its coal exports to China the US gains through the income received, jobs created, boost to the economy etc. China gains because it gets more coal that enables it to produce more cheap goods that it sells to the world including the US. Gets income back to buy expensive stuff and services from the West including the Us and so on. Creates a virtuos circle with everyone gaining, living standards rising poverty alleviated, international tensions eased etc.
                    Pretty close.
                    Our enviro-nazi movement has demonized coal, both for domestic use and foreign, so have engaged efforts to constrict USA coal production and export. Some of this is via the courts and injunctions, others via extensive lobbying. My #4 post here gives some clue on this.

                    One key player is Tom Steyer whom made his fortune partly in US coal, then divested and reinvest in Australia and East Asian coal. Meanwhile claiming and acting as if a great environmentalist and green supporter. This shown largely thru funding enviro-nazi groups here in the USA, especially those whom are anti-coal.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Pretty close.
                      Our enviro-nazi movement has demonized coal, both for domestic use and foreign, so have engaged efforts to constrict USA coal production and export. Some of this is via the courts and injunctions, others via extensive lobbying. My #4 post here gives some clue on this.

                      One key player is Tom Steyer whom made his fortune partly in US coal, then divested and reinvest in Australia and East Asian coal. Meanwhile claiming and acting as if a great environmentalist and green supporter. This shown largely thru funding enviro-nazi groups here in the USA, especially those whom are anti-coal.
                      Coal and other fossils fuels are a thing of the past whether you like it or not. Even a company Like Exxon is seeing that the energy industry is changing.


                      Energy portfolio diversification

                      Diversification of Energy and Alternative Energy
                      ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants (F&L) products play a role in a number of power-generation applications used in wind turbines, geothermal and cogeneration plants, hydroelectric installations, and nuclear facilities.

                      Wind

                      Delivering optimum equipment protection and oil performance for some of the most extreme operating conditions often associated with wind turbines, Mobilgear SHC ™ XMP synthetic gear oil lubricates more than 40,000 wind turbines worldwide. (In fact, roughly 60 percent of gear-driven wind turbines manufactured in recent years are lubricated with Mobil™ Industrial Lubricants.) Besides protecting against wear, Mobilgear SHC™ XMP exceeds performance of traditional oils by extending the interval between oil changes from 18 months to three years or more, thus substantially reducing the amount of used oil generated and maintenance required.
                      https://lubes.exxonmobil.com/Lubes/s...ification.aspx

                      And you also have this.

                      The world’s largest oil companies have in recent weeks announced a series of “green” investments – in wind farms, electric battery storage systems and carbon capture and storage (CCS). These unexpected moves come hot on the heels of revelations by Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude exporter, that it plans to sell off parts of its national oil company and diversify its economy away from petroleum.
                      https://www.theguardian.com/business...rgy-solar-wind

                      The question is not whether or not the coal industry will die but when?
                      Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                      Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                      Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                        Coal and other fossils fuels are a thing of the past whether you like it or not. Even a company Like Exxon is seeing that the energy industry is changing.
                        Someday, sure, but you guys need to stop trying to force everything to change overnight.
                        If it is true that during Obama's watch that "renewables" have doubled their contribution to the power grid, that means we are up to about 4% now, maybe 5%.

                        And that is not counting Hydro, which the EnviroMental-cases want to destroy.

                        And most of the companies are jumping on the Free Fedral Money band-wagon, these toys aren't doing must for anyone yet. Even if they could, Gang Green keeps trying to shut down things like the windmills because of Bird-strikes and similar nonsense.
                        Fact it, these whackos are against energy of any kind, for anyone, and the fact that anyone is listening to them is proof of mental deficiency. People who are opposed to pipelines and trains and trucks should have all of their utilities shut off.
                        Let's see what they think of an 1800s life-style then.


                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post

                        The world’s largest oil companies have in recent weeks announced a series of “green” investments
                        Yeah, "in recent weeks", that was back in May.


                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                        The question is not whether or not the coal industry will die but when?
                        I suggest you ask the Chinese.
                        "Why is the Rum gone?"

                        -Captain Jack

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The world spent centuries developing coal as an energy source and over a century doing so with petroleum. It is clear lack of common and financial sense to think we can undo this "overnight".

                          Hydro is up against environmental concerns about fish runs/habitat and running into blockage there. Here in the PNW some of the dams have been dismantled for fisheries sake, so hydro is a limited future source.

                          The other main "renewables" are wind and solar. First problem is what to do when the Sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Second problem is the cost per kilowatt is from five to ten times that of carbon fuel systems. Third problem is these often net petroleum for the "plastic/synthetic" components. Fourth problem appears to be short lifespans than expected. A fifth with windpower is that you are impacting weather patterns/air movement, hence another "climate change" causer.

                          Ocean wave generation is one other renewable alternate, but will likely have some of the same drawbacks as mentioned above.

                          In terms of cost, efficiency and durability, fusion might be the better course to consider. But that will hinge upon tech development not yet achieved.

                          I've long been partial to orbital solar power satellites, beam the electrical down as microwave and then convert to electric, but to be cost-effective these would have to be part of a large space development program, blended with private and public resources/funding and likely making use of mining and manufacturing down off-planet.

                          Carbon fuel is going to be the main sources for the near future, unless we all want a lot less energy, electrical grid and transport, and want to pay about 10-20 times what we do now. With scrubbers(FGD), coal can be burnt quite clean and the H2O and CO2 coming out the stacks is just what 99% of life, Flora, on this planet needs.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                            Coal and other fossils fuels are a thing of the past whether you like it or not. Even a company Like Exxon is seeing that the energy industry is changing.




                            https://lubes.exxonmobil.com/Lubes/s...ification.aspx

                            And you also have this.



                            https://www.theguardian.com/business...rgy-solar-wind

                            The question is not whether or not the coal industry will die but when?
                            US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016

                            This forecast assumes Obama's unlawful Clean Power Plan remains in force until 2040...



                            Coal won't even be a "thing of the past" with CPP.

                            Just zapping Obama's unlawful Clean Power Plan would be a HUUUGE boost to our coal industry...



                            Clearing out obstacles to exporting coal and other regulatory relief will drive US coal production even higher.

                            Regarding "big oil" buying into the green schist... it's just lip service to please government regulators and Wall Street [email protected] French major Total SA has "bought in" more than any other major oil company.

                            Total SA announced that they would “invest” $500 million per year in renewable energy. In response to low oil prices, Total trimmed its capital budget by 15% to $19 billion. $500 million is 2.6% of $19 billion. 97.4% of Total’s capital budget won't be spent on green schist.

                            A little more perspective:
                            Millions of USD 2015
                            • Total Revenue $143,421.00… $500 million is 0.3% of Total’s 2015 depressed gross revenue.
                            • Gross Profit $47,863.00… $500 million is 1% of Total’s 2015 depressed gross profit.
                            • Total Operating Expense $138,698.00… $500 million is 0.4% of Total’s 2015 operating expenses.
                            • Net Income $5,087.00… $500 million is 9.8% of Total’s 2015 extremely depressed net income.

                            Total's "investment" in green schist doesn’t even amount to a drop in a 42-gal barrel.


                            (Data laughing at you)
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X