It's a bad excuse, but the pipeline idea is bad too. We shouldn't be piping oil from tar sands across the whole United States to get to a refinery in the South. We should be building a new refinery on the Canadian border. That can't be done because of the EPA, but it's the logical thing to do -- and it avoids all these environmental concerns about pipelines crossing major water aquifers.
Even without the regulations, it's cheaper to build the pipeline to an existing refinery than it is to build a new refinery.The "environmental" concerns about crossing aquifers are overblown. They're about as solid as fracking leading to burning water coming out of your faucet, or causing earthquakes. Pipes leak. Trains crash. Both are low probability events, and the expectation of the costs also are quite low.Eric Hines
Refineries may be expensive but we still need more.
I'd say it differently: we shouldn't create conditions in which the pipeline is very obviously a good idea.But I'd leave the judgment whether it's a good idea up to the people who want to spend their money to build it.
Refineries may be expensive but we still need more.No argument there. It's not a matter of one or the other, though; it's a matter of both.As to where and under what circumstances to build more refineries, it's nearly as expensive to shut one down as it is to build it, and deucedly expensive just to temporarily mothball one. It's not like shutting down a car factory for the summer; there has to be a long-term need for a new refinery. And that judgment, as Tex says, should be left to the investors involved--to the market.Eric Hines
Post a Comment