Remember that we're talking about a profitable gas company that wants to build a pipeline not your lazy uncle Herb. I'm sure they had people on staff for the sole purpose of getting permits, etc. from the .gov. If it was so simple them to comply with the government's demands, do you *really* believe they wouldn't have gotten their permits and started building?

The point of the pipeline is to get LNG to the places it's needed. If getting it to Jersey gets it to boats and to other countries, then NOT having a pipeline means the gas isn't being exported to some place else. Again, this is a *business*, they aren't just going to spend the money to build a pipeline because it's fun to build one, if they are building it it's because they believe they *need* it to sell their product.

 

While we're on energy, the Dems today blocked passage of a Republican bill to make America energy independent, and on the "oil" front would include increasing leases for oil production, finishing the keystone pipeline, etc. At the end of the day, our political parties show their colors. AND even cities, etc. are suing the oil companies now, *for climate change*! You can't seriously tell me the Left isn't trying to put these companies out of business.

"https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ho...ll-energy-expert-slams-move-as-unconscionable"


"
After a century of wielding extraordinary economic and political power, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for driving the greatest existential threat of our lifetimes.

An unprecedented wave of lawsuits, filed by cities and states across the US, aim to hold the oil and gas industry to account for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels – and covering up what they knew along the way."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...ey-may-pay-the-price?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

So trying to sue the oil companies out of business is a good thing? I suppose losing our energy independence and buying oil from (and hence supporting the governments of) regimes with abysmal human and women's rights records is a better thing in your eyes.

On those leases, they aren't all the same. Saudi Arabia's oil, for example is around 25 feet below the surface, making it cheap to extract. Some of those US leases have oil that's *thousands* of feet down and would be very expensive to extract. If the price of oil is low it the oil company would be losing money to extract the oil.

 

Not b.s.at all. Before the current crunch weren't you the one complaining about how the Keystone pipeline's oil would all be sent overseas instead of being used domestically? The point being oil and gas can be sent wherever. People in the US want lower prices now, the article shows this can give it to them. It doesn't say that the gas can NOT be sent anywhere else, and what about the gas that is currently being sent to NJ that no longer would be needed? Would the company just not use it? That doesn't sound like a good business practice.

You seem to have suddenly forgotten about supply and demand after being so vociferous about it yesterday.

The trouble with your "we aren't expecting a shortage" idea is that if a situation arises where we need more natural gas we'll need it *now*, and new production can't just be ramped up overnight. It takes *time* to get industries up and producing. People will suffer because of the mindset of "well, we're not suffering now, so we don't need to do anything". The sad part is if there is a disaster and next Winter, say, people are literally freezing, have no hot water or electricity or something on the East Coast, who will YOU blame for it? "The People" and governments who kept filing lawsuits to stop the oil companies from building anything, or "the greedy oil companies"? Somehow, I think I know the answer.

 

That's right, and that's the point of having the leases. IF the price of oil goes high enough, they can extract the oil. When oil can be more cheaply gotten somewhere else, though, they aren't going to go after oil they will lose money selling. The point being many of those leases are currently worthless as far as production goes, they are just insurance.

 

I do blame outdated infrastructure for a good deal of our woes. Whose FAULT is it that we haven't seriously upgraded our infrastructure since it was built in the 1950's? Putin's? The oil companies? Nope, it's our Congress' fault, and especially the anti-energy left wing part of it.

 

That's such b.s. The stated goal of the greens IS to forcibly put the oil companies out of business!

If the green's goal was to make alternative energy so much more attractive and cheap than petroleum that no one would buy petroleum products and the companies would go out of business, I'd agree with them 100%. That's not their goal, though. Their goal is to stop big oil now and hope that alternative energy can make up for the loss.

 

"Make sure you get 10% for the Big Guy". Hunter Biden's laptop is a real thing, he's corrupt as evidenced by his Ukranian oil company gig, painting scam, etc., and it's looking like Biden is involved as well.

That's something Americans need to know about. If our press is in bed with the Democratic party and refused to investigate it, why NOT ask other people to say what they know?

 

Yes, the Oscars incident is important in that it shows how much the social norms of our society have collapsed.

If our media won't look in to Hunter or Joe Biden, who CAN you ask to expose their misdeeds? LOL, the Dems had no problem asking for Russian help when the target was Trump and they were pushing validation of the (fake) "Steele dossier".