Obama Administration blocks pipe line! Will it help our area?

Here it is see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-source-state-de...

Will it force a higher demand for the gas in our area? 

Views: 4309

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Schnoozie on January 24, 2012 at 10:29am
Text:
 The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet.
Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 18, 2012
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Not Yet Occurred: Reported by Committee ...
Not Yet Occurred: House Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...
Permalink Reply by Larry Gander on January 19, 2012 at 12:10am

MARINELL,

I WILL STOOP TO POLITICS FOR A MOMENT.

OBAMA HAS NO PERSONS INTEREST AT HEART BUT HIS OWN.

SORRY, JUST COULDN'T RESIST.

Permalink Reply by Mike h on January 18, 2012 at 3:35pm

In many respects this is much ado about nothing. When Congress set the tight deadline for a decision it basically forced Obama to give it a thumbs down. Nebraska was unhappy with it passing over the Ogalalla aquifer. Keystone indicated they were willing to reroute but they haven't filed a revised proposal. So how could Obama approve what hasn't been presented? I'm a lifelong Republican but this is just about politics and not really about building the pipeline.

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on January 18, 2012 at 3:42pm

The plan was studied for over three years! Will anti fracktivist get a moratorium study?  Scares me!

Permalink Reply by Mike h on January 19, 2012 at 3:20am

It took 2 years for me to get a lease on my property that wasn't a pile of crap.

 

The two month deadline for Obama to make a decision was political. I don't care for the man as President but I'm not going to pile on as part of a piece of politics.

Permalink Reply by Larry Gander on January 19, 2012 at 12:07am

MARK.

CORRECT!

Permalink Reply by Tanya Gabriele on January 26, 2012 at 3:07pm

Mark--why is it that people like you believe that fracking and protecting the environment dismiss one another?  Do you mean to tell me all those commercials  Cheasapeak publishes about its effort to protect the environment are untrue?

Permalink Reply by Tanya Gabriele on January 26, 2012 at 3:04pm

That's an excellent disclosure Mike!  Thank you!

Permalink Reply by Robin Jackson on January 18, 2012 at 4:15pm

After reading the whole article, it isn't a block as much as a temporary stop till all the duckies are in the road. At the end it was basically a state department request.

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 18, 2012 at 4:42pm

The tar sands are a very expensive play that only will increase the price of oil past todays price.  If you can't increase refinery capacity in the US because of current EPA guidlines, and they run near capacity some of the time, why would you send tar sand oil from Canada to Texas.  It will only delay product from our region being refined.  There are plenty of pipelines to build around here.  There is a vast amount of industrial metals in much of Canada's tar sands that are currently not profitable to extract because of the energy needed to burn away the shale.  But, just maybe, if you combine extracting oil at the same time you extract metals, might be a profit?  Follow the money and keep it at home.

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 18, 2012 at 6:26pm

It is private enterprise but investers will not see returns at current oil prices. The whole refinery industry has bothered me for years. The EPA has the industry hand tied but the refineries in operation are the winners. The midstream is in a win win also. Like OPEC refineries are a legislated and/or regulated bottleneck to control the supply to control the price. No matter how much production there is and how much pipeline is in, it aways comes down to refinery capacity. If the tar sands are such a profitable energy play why don't they build a refinery in Canada and sell it to Japan and else where. The tar sands don't have any benifit to developing the Utica. Countries like Venezuala, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia all are trying to bring the price even higher. Oil prices are rising faster than supply and demand should have them. All the more reason to develope US energy.

Permalink Reply by Larry Gander on January 19, 2012 at 12:05am

KATHERINE,

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service