From: fjmccall@gmail.com
Peter Jason wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:55:57 -0500, "conway caine"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Peter Jason" wrote in message
>>news:oecs8a5uf9sac3hplgefvlrcbr1i0ukipd@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 14:30:05 -0500, "conway caine"
>>>"JeffreyHamilton" wrote in message news:m6kffo$jn9$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>It will be interesting to see how the lower price will affect the "oil
>>>sands" projects in Canada. I gather the breakeven point is approximetly $70
>>>dollars a barrel and it's $65 for the American "oil shale" extraction
>>>process.
>>>
>>>
>>>***When are they going to build the blipping pipeline? This American
>>>finagling is past all understanding. A pipeline from Canada to Texas is not
>>>going to destroy Western civilization as we know it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yet the Wall St paper-shufflers almost did. The same lot are still
>>extant just gearing up for another try.
>>
>>*****Wherein lies the problem here, Peter? Are railroad tank cards and
>>trucks really a safer alternative for the transportation of oil? More to the
>>point, do we have safer alternatives to fossil fuel? We cannot survive if we
>>park all our vehicles and then be off gamboling down the highways and
>>byways, celebrating the great Green Revolution.
>
>They could always build an undersea pipeline following the coastline.
>They have fancy undersea gougers to dig a trench and therein bury the
>pipe. Rather like communication cables.
>
Gee, why not make it preposterously expensive? If you're going to
take it to the coast, just load it on tankers at that point. Even
that is the more expensive and wasteful path, since you still have to
get the stuff to a refinery.
e
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
