@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I must watch myself to not get involved in energy discussions involving supply. However, I will say that Spurt has his head up his ass again and somebody's gonna have to extract it before he suffocates.
The people of Nebraska are overwhelmingly against the pipeline route because it overlies the US's biggest single aquifer that is heavily recharged from the SANDHILLS (where the pipe is supposed to go).
PS, we are experiencing a glut of nat gas and as such, the prices are declining in futures trading. If the drilling stops it will be purely the decision of the gas exploration companies (NOT THE GOVT as some of you drill drill shitheads are mumbling)
I converted my entire house to gas . Innstead of the stupid ethanol cars, we should be doing nat gas engines and propyl ester diesels (made from nat gas)
I agree with Farmerman with respect to the Nebraska sandhills issue. This is a strange and environmentally risky choice for this small segment of the pipeline route, and avoiding the sandhills entirely (as do other nearby pipelines) is both easily feasible and appropriate.
However, the actions to date of the Administration strongly suggest their objections go far beyond the (rather easioy solved) Nebraska sandhills issue.
The extensive verbiage here about the beneficial decline in natural gas prices is largely irrelevant to the question of regional supplies of petroleum. The two fuels are fungible and interchangable in many aspects of the chemical industry, but very little beyond that. The increased domestic production of natural gas has already been a very significant boost to our troubled economy - both in its direct production aspects and in the economies it delivers to other jobs-producing industries, as well as the obvious benefits to consumers generally. Increased availability of domestic or regional sources of petroleum will have a similar and additive beneficial economic effect.
As Ceili has noted the Canadians are going to continue expl;oitation of Alberta's tar sands resources, whether we like it or not (and my impression is, whether the national government in Ottawa likes it or not). My company does business in Alberta wirh Suncor and other producers there. The environmental regulatory regime in Alberta is vastly more permissive than what exists here. The Alberta government is introducing some new requirements that will reduce the leaching from the vast expanse of residue ponds into the Bow, Athabasca and other rivers, but in the main the development would never be permitted here. I believe wisdom lies somewhere between the two extremes - the development of these resources should be permitted, but the economic margins permit more precautions than are currently being taken by the operators in Alberta. In the end this is an issue for the Canadians to decide for themselves, and without our help or hectoring.
The tar sands petroleum will (appropriately) be produced with or without our consent. The economic benefit to both producers and consumers is maximized if the petroleum is consumed in Canada and the U.S. Shipping it to Asia involves added costs both economically and environmentally.
On the pipeline issue the U.S. government continues to exhibit the foolish intolerance, zealotry and stupidity so amply illustrated by several posters here .
