I hope your really not trying to tell me about natural gas. It is pretty common knowledge that declining G prices have made it the defacto choice of power companies. One day that may not be the case. I know a guy with 6 wells on his property. They hit oil and NG. they burned over a million Cf of gas pumping oil. There was no pipeline to carry it they had to burn it. A real shame. Anyway, understand don't like coal. Maybe nobody but WV does. I really don't care either way. I want cheap electricity. I would prefer not to kill people or things in the process but if it is cheap enough and they die voluntarily...ehhh.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two > wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." > > If you're moving a pipeline (or a power plant, or a railroad, or landfill, > or whatever) to make one group happy, you are invariably putting the same > burden on some other group. They're probably going to be the "sheep" who > in Franklin's example are just an outnumbered group who's opinion matters > less specifically because they're outnumbered. If we need pipelines and > landfills, they are going to go *somewhere*. > > If we want completely fair and balanced choices, we might have to abandon > democracy in favor of a completely rational despot. Maybe we could put a > computer in charge. > > ....not saying I really have any answers. Just a cynical opinion. > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Carl Peterson" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: 2/17/2017 9:45:15 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread was Obama admin... > > "Really? Pipeline? So you think carying all that oil via train is safer > and has less a footprint? " > > In general, transport by pipeline is safer, but seems to do more > environmental damage when something goes wrong. Not the real point > though. The real issues are: > > 1) Is it in our best interest as a country to build a pipline across the > US so an international conglomerate can sell Canadian oil overseas. > On the face of it, I would say no but I could be missing something. Seems > to be a bunch of public risks with private profits. > > 2) How was the route chosen and were safer but more expensive routes an > option. If we reroute for group A and screw over group B, thats a serious > issue. > >
