The Nat Gas in North Dakota was flared because it wasn’t economic to bring it to market. The infrastructure wasn’t in place to gather it, let alone get it out of North Dakota. If you cannot complete those steps, building LNG terminals a thousand or so miles away is not a solution.
Insults and name calling doesn’t change the facts.
Calling you a self-appointed energy know-it-all is not name calling, it is a factual description.
You spend far too much time arguing about trivial details without keeping the bigger picture.
LNG exports are a solution that drives the development of infrastructure. As Trump would say you make the trade deal with the foreign market, facilitate the investment and stand aside while it rolls out.
The regulators you referred to are stupid and incompetent. By mandating the gathering systems as infrastructure to reduce flaring, the gathered excess NG has nowhere to go but it must go somewhere because there is too much for regional commercial and consumer usage. This is not addressed except to say if the excess NG is not used regulators whisper a threat to shutdown producers.
The NG excess is too great for domestic utilization, hence flaring. Shutdown or export are the only other outcomes. New tech is a wildcard that is unknown in nearly all respects except in feeding back to power drilling equipment and facilities but that falls far short as a broad solution.
The economic and effective outcome is in outlets at liquefaction plants at ports. Laying NG pipeline is not a new activity and laying pipeline to such plants at ports can be done on a crash basis over a few years. As soon as the export contracts are underwritten, there will be a line of investors and plenty of contractors to lay pipe.
Have fun with your thread.