EPA Says "NO" to Keystone XL -- Bakken, North Dakota, USA
Link here.
The Environmental Protection Agency has raised new concerns about a proposed pipeline that would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.
The EPA said that despite two lengthy reports, the State Department still has not done sufficient analysis of the project's impact on the environment. The letter urged State to conduct a more thorough analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes.
Three Five observations:
- What "new concerns" could there possibly be? I especially like the "alternative pipeline routes." I suggest: straight west to Canadian Pacific ports.
- I don't thnk the EPA actually said, "No." I think the exact words were, "H***, no. A pipeline ships oil, doesn't it. We can't let that happen. Better study it some more."
- This is good news for US oil industry, at least from my perspective.
- TransCanada needs to move this oil to China.
- Can you spell ENB?
who wants this oil ? I do .maybe washington thinks it is cheaper and safer to go to war in the mideast than depend on our neighbors to the north {or hugo c. from v. } jj ps holte was only mediocre ,you did not pray hard enough for me.
ReplyDeleteFortunately the IP is only one data point. Before it's all over, my hunch is that the Holte will do very well. I think a hitting a Bakken well is a lot like winning the lottery. Some have a huge IP and others pay off more slowly over the life of the well; in a lottery, you can take your lump sum up front or you can take out smaller amounts annually over 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes think we have madmen running the show in Washington.