Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 4, 2010 at 1:03

GoshDarn - Some interest in the Alaskan pipeline is warranted as an indicator of the political sentiment toward developing ng resources. That pipeline would serve a different region, really no threat, other than price, to our ng. And it might also serve as an indication that the NW region is more open to ng as a transition fuel, may indicate that they are amenable to backing off a very vocal stance on other energy resources.

This development in the legal wranglings will be interesting to watch. My concern would be who's holding hands under the table given the political ties & monetary connections. Oh, I know, I know, correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation .... unless, UNLESS the correlation is a strong one, mathematically speaking.

I would think that IF this is an attempt to change venue, that such would be granted to a district that would have less bias in the matter. Still don't understand how parties involved are allowed to choose, just thought they could only argue such a change is needed.

But, what do I know?

lol, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on July 5, 2010 at 20:02

I disagree with your "connect the dots" approach, GoshDarn. Sesport makes an excellent point, and that is, for those of us with some interest in production of fossil fuels, whether it be land or mineral owner, rough-neck, the country grocer whose business has gone up 50% because of the new workers in the area, or state and local government, WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, for better or worse. Whether it's Haynesville Shale gas, Marcellus Shale gas, or Alaskan gas, we are all linked together. Even domestic oil production and off-shore production, our long-term fates are linked.

Sure, we may get a short-term bump in NG prices from a moratorium of off-shore drilling, but in case you haven't noticed what's going on in the main stream media (and Congress) there is a huge body of influential people who want to rid us of ALL exploration for fossil fuels, whether it's coal, oil, or natural gas. And consider the politics of natural gas. Right now, there are a small handful of states, with Texas being the only one with much political clout, that produce most of the domestic NG. Why would politicians from Washington State and Oregon care anything about the NG industry? All they THINK they know is truly evil people own exploration companies, and all they do is go around and pollute the environment and rip off the locals. That's the image much of the country holds for the oil and gas industry (think Haliburton).

Well, if the Alaskan pipeline is built, then those states will start to see the benefit of NG, and many of the voters in those states will take notice, and decide that NG isn't so bad after all. Portland, Oregon is the center of the universe for bio-diesel. Great. But there's a limited supply of grease traps from Burger Kings and McDonalds. So let's help them understand how clean NG burns, and how much lower its emissions are. Maybe we can help make Seattle the center of the universe for NG-fueled cars and trucks once they have a large, reliable, cost-effective supply of NG.

Let's help Marcellus gas move New England from fuel oil for heating their homes in their cold winters to much more clean and efficient NG, a product that isn't imported from foreign countries and the production of which employes many thousands of NY residents, helping their economy.

We can't afford to be short-sighted. Expansion of the use of NG will help the country in many, many ways. And it will help our own pocket books as well, but we shouldn't even talk about that. Just plays in to the stereotype so many hold.

• ▶ Reply