For QEC to get halted on Quebec is a big blow for the company, but they don't put all the eggs in one basket. Yes "Rocket", they want to shake out weak investors. They also want to find a buttom. Some investors don't want a government intervention, they want the share or index to fall as deep as it can to see buying starting when people thinks that now everything got too cheep. Trust is the most important thing. Maybe we are close cause now we want to find out about, can we trust the company, how much is the value, what is the outlook from here. An other sign could be when people begin to write that if they had more money they would buy or write they go to the bank to pick up a loan to buy:-)
I have read that some thinks we could be in for another downturn, maybe about the first two months of 2012. I don't know, most important for me is the things Rocco got from Jason, that QEC preserves capital and looks to improve shareholder value, "will improve our reserves" I like this:) exiting.

I have got a link to a site with "shares out on loan", short interests. For qec it looks to be about 1,3-1.4mill, but you can see for yourselves here: http://www.dataexplorers.com/products/data. I don't know how often they update and so, but maybe you can use it.
And it looks like China needs more NG still:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/origin-conoco-jv-to-sell-more-lng-equity-2011-12-11?Link=obinsite
And::
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sinopec-enn-energy-to-offer-to-buy-china-gas-2011-12-12
About US:
U.S. bets big on natural gas:
http://www.marketwatch.com/future-of-energy

QEC management are very talented and has a long experience, so they don't just buy any other shaleplay or oli asset. I worry about the NG-price, I'm sure they do too.(will they buy oil or maybe oil-shale or shale oil?) The Kittymat-plant will be running soon I hope and still more companies in the US wants to export NG.

http://www.hsconnect.com/page/content.detail/id/566525/Report--Fracking-does-not-cause--earthquakes.html?nav=5010

Yes Steel, look this article also: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-08/moody-s-affirms-u-s-s-aaa-rating-cites-dollar-s-role-as-reserve-currency.html

Here's a bit: The U.S. today retained its Aaa ranking with a negative outlook in part because the dollar’s status as the main reserve currency allows it to support higher debt levels than other countries.

And Obama:

On Aug. 3 Moody’s said the outlook for the U.S. grade is now negative, after President Barack Obama signed into law a plan to lift the nation’s borrowing limit and cut spending following months of wrangling between Democratic leaders and Republican lawmakers.

President Barack Obama’s renewed sense of urgency on the nation’s debt is “encouraging,” Deven Sharma, president of S&P, said in an interview on CNBC television today. Obama, breaking his silence on the downgrade of federal debt, said today that the U.S. “always will be a AAA country” and that he will release a new proposal to deal with the federal deficit in the coming weeks.

---------------

But good night. It's 3.30 AM here and I must to the dentist in the morning.

the British government's response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee's report on shale gas concludes that there is "no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process itself poses a direct risk to underground water aquifers. That hypothetical and unproven risk [our emphasis] must be balanced against the energy security benefits that shale gas could provide to the UK. We conclude that, on balance, a moratorium in the UK is not justified or necessary at present."

The benefits to the economy (and carbon targets) could be huge – and the government worries about the UK falling behind.

"We are concerned that there could be adverse competitive consequences for the UK if Poland unilaterally develops its shale gas resources within the EU, particularly if their energy policy is driven by energy security," the response reads.

And there's an interested aside: "There is substantial evidence that UK offshore unconventional gas resources could dwarf the potential onshore supplies. While these might be economically unviable at present, 'uneconomic' reserves can become economic quickly as technology and prices shift," according to the response.
---------------------------------------------------
The government recommends that the UK watch Poland, the "barometer of Europe", to see what can be learned. It also calls on the Energy Department to revise policy to take account of cheap gas from new sources from now on. This is big actually. France have tryed to sell nuke to UK and a big offshore windfarm have also been an idea for UK. The focus is on energy in all of the EU. With earlier russia supply disruption(NG through Georgia/Ukraine) and germany want to stop it's nuclear energy, there's big money to be made here and fokus has been on NG a lot.German compagny E.ON has made deals with russia gazprom, but of cause the EU want to be independent from russia, at least they want to be able to say to gazprom that they dont care if they sell their gas to others and most important they dont want to be held hostage. UK has big storrage tanks for NG. Maybe canada could export some of its NG to the EU?
---------------------
This is new to me: "France includes nuclear power exit among option"
(Reuters) - France raised the possibility for the first time of pulling out of nuclear power although its energy minister stressed on Friday that this was just one of many scenarios, not the one favored by the government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-france-nuclear-idUSTRE76733F20110708

-------------------------------------------------------------
Germany can phase out nuclear by 2017: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE74Q2P120110527

---------
German utilities look to Russia for gas and money. * German nuclear phase-out hits earnings, raises emissions

* Gas-fired power production low on carbon emissions.

FRANKFURT, July 20 (Reuters) - Germany's nuclear phase-out has prompted the country's largest utilities to look to energy heavyweight Russia for investments and for natural gas for low-carbon power production.

RWE , Germany's largest power producer, last week revealed it had begun exclusive talks with Russian gas monopoly Gazprom , the world's largest gas producer, about gas and power joint-ventures.
------
The faster-than-planned nuclear phase-out in Germany together with a tax on nuclear power is eating away earnings at the power companies, with RWE forecasting three years of falling profits.

It has also put limits on a source of power that has lower carbon emissions than coal-fired plants. This has hit RWE as Germany's largest emitter of the greenhouse gas and also EnBW as it relies more heavily on nuclear power than competitors.

-------
Other parties in the negotiations between Russian and German companies instead want to look for partners in the west.

"We should not ignore the interest of (EU Energy Commissioner Guenther) Oettinger" and talk to potential investors in the west, which are also interested in VNG, said the VNG shareholder.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/germany-gas-idUKLDE76J0YR20110720?type=companyNews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And: Government clears new gas field to counter declines:

LONDON/FRANKFURT, July 25 - The government on Monday approved development of one of the largest untapped gas fields in the UK North Sea, Breagh, in a bid to reverse a trend of production declines since the start of the last decade.

In that period Britain switched from being virtually self-sufficient to last year importing more gas than it produced, increasing dependence on foreign supplies from Norway, Russia and the Middle East.

Falling production from old North Sea fields and an increasingly stringent taxation regime on oil and gas profits has helped drive investors out of the region.

But the decision of German upstream company RWE Dea, which operates Breagh with a 70 percent stake, to plough ahead with its investment despite the tax hike earlier this year has handed the North Sea a much needed boost.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/25/uk-rwe-brief-idUKTRE76O4KL20110725?type=companyNews

There was some wrong about metane in that article

Like most issues this one is not as clear as it may seem. Oil does not burn as completely as natural gas in an internal combustion engine. This is due to the fact that oil, a liquid, does not mix well with air whereas natrual gas, being a gas, does.

The alleged cause of methane emissions is via leaks --- not from the combustion process that is quite efficient if gas is inducted into the engine properly.

The original study by Robert Howarth was retracted because of an error acknowledged by the author:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/25058/
This is from Howart:

Howarth's analysis, however, is just a preliminary one. He's already found one major error in his original calculations. "I blew it," he says, by not including the impact of methane leaks from coal mining. (Here's a link to his original, which contains the error; and here's the updated version). But he still says the gap between coal and natural gas is far smaller than generally thought. And his numbers are significantly different than those researchers at MIT came up with a year ago. (On a CO2 equivalent grams per megajoule basis, they scored diesel at 10.7 and gasoline at 14.4, with natural gas splitting the difference at 12.5). The two studies make different assumptions about the strength of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the amount of methane leakage, for example. A complete analysis should also look at the different efficiencies of natural gas and gasoline or diesel vehicles. The MIT study concludes that there is a benefit from switching to natural gas, all told, but it might not be worth the cost or the hassle. Making more efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles might work better, and be a faster way to reduce greenhouse emissions, it suggests.

But for all the shortcomings of Howarth's analysis, it points to a real need. Before Congress passes any bill promoting natural gas, a thorough study of the potential impact needs to be taken into account, including the energy it takes to obtain it, and the impact of methane leaks.

Otherwise the U.S. might end up subsidizing something that does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions--as happened with corn ethanol.

--I'll like to post this coment also:
"A study like this also needs to take into account the fact that using methane as fuel prevents it from being emitted into the atmosphere by natural processes. How much is emitted from geological sources I don't know, but biomass, which can be converted into fuel, will release a lot of methane as it decomposes".

I would like to ad that it will also use oxygene and release CO2 I think.

I think this issue could maybe be big, the thing about methane from natural processes. If you think about methane captured in the ice in the northern part of Russia. If the ice melts(global warming:) this will go into the air. Logic that it's better to make energy from it.
Just now russia has alot more heat in the air than normal. I think it's because of the "La Ninia" weather phenomenon.

Anyway, germany will stop using nuclear energy. This is very big, billion of euros, so switching to NG on ships will be done, I think. E.ON wants alot of money, to turn off the nukes, maybe if they can get a deal with the ships:)

Yes. I cant help thinking about the US is letting out 30-40 TONNES of mercury in the air, every year from coal burning. I'm also thinking about EnCana, because all their heavy equipmentand and trucks runs of NG. I dont think anybody like, benzene, cloride, organic compounds what ever their names are, to be in the air they breate, so fine if they can find a solution. I think the NG industry wants to appear as a clean industry and if held against coal dont you think NG could win still? Well, I think that even against some so called "clean tech" or RW, NG could win or get even? And yes, if cars began to run on NG this would ad to redusing CO2 and lead amoung other. I dont know, but it seams to me that focus is very much on CO2 and not that much on heavy metals and maybe pesticides, pesticides from agriculture and spray fluids, propellants including from aerosol, these cans pollute and global it ads up, but maybe it's me, anyway I think the CO2 focus is a little too heavy. Buy a bit more rainforrest:)