The Fairfield SunTimes has an interesting "story":
During the recent energy conference when
MDU Chief Executive Officer, David Goodin, was asked why they located
the first refinery to be built in the US since 1976 near Dickinson, his
gracious response was to say that they were “pleased” with the prompt
regulatory process of North Dakota. The project was launched and it is
expected to be completed within a two-year span.
There was plenty of mumbled audience comment
which indicated that most of the people in the room understood why the
question was asked, and they understood what wasn’t said. Application
for permitting in Montana wouldn’t even begin to be processed within a
two-year span. The company or any company could very well be still
waiting for permitting, ten years from now, having spent millions on
legal expenses.
A similar response emerged when one speaker
reported the annual rate at which Germany is expected to build
coal-fired generating plants, over the next 30 years. “We couldn’t even
get one permitted in thirty years,” said one conference attendee.
Whether true or not, such isn’t outside the realm of possibility in
Montana, and just that fact alone is enough to dissuade most investors
from even testing the waters.
This speaks volumes about the "sense of urgency" in some states, in some agencies. It would be interesting to hear a bit more on the permit process in Montana (corrected from original post when I accidentally wrote "Minnesota").
Permits getting proved in Minnesota? Are you serious. Minnesota is the state where absolutely nothing is allowed except for their pet perversions. And so it goes.
ReplyDeleteGood catch! My mistake -- a typographical error -- that last word was supposed to be "Montana," not "Minnesota." It's been corrected. Thank you for catching that and taking time to write.
Delete