Whether you drop off your kids at school, buy groceries for your family, or heat your home, every American feels the financial burden of Joe Biden’s anti-energy agenda with middle- and lower-income families being the most disproportionately affected.
-Elmo
This is odd. There are already LNG pipelines running across America. I guess adding more would be too "Keystone"-like? It also reminds me that Warren Buffet owns both a railroad (which has revenues of $1Bn/yr off oil transportation) as well the Union Tank Company (which makes the oil cars for rail). I wonder if the congresscritter is in his pocket?
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of natural gas pipelines running here and there, but no extensive LNG lines except at terminals. LNG has to be kept at around -260°F to remain liquid, otherwise it changes phase to become a gas again. The ships that transport LNG around the world are essentially huge, highly-thermally-efficient floating thermos bottles.
DeleteYes, there are gas pipelines running all over the country, but not enough of them. Multiple tries for a new gas pipeline into New England have been killed by ignorant Greens and the fanatic NIMBYs and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). New England needs that natural gas, but the very people complaining about their high heating and electricity bills are the same ones killing the projects that will lower both.
DeleteSome of our LNG transport issues could be solved if Congress repealed or modified the Jones Act which prohibits cargo being carried from one US port to another by anything other than US-built, US-owned, and US-flagged ships. How many LBG tankers meeting those three criteria exists?
None.
That means LNG cannot be shipped from one US LNG terminal to another by LNG tanker, something that can carry a lot more LNG than any train. New England's natural gas needs could be met by domestic LNG without the Jones Act preventing it. Instead, the LNG has to come from foreign suppliers like Yemen, Libya...or Russia, nations not friendly to the US.
Of course, if we were able to build new natural gas pipelines we wouldn't even need to think about this at all. But we have to deal with people who will block pipelines. We also have to deal with people who also block electricity transmission lines that would bring cheap, clean electricity from Hydro Quebec into the area.
Buffet is making money hand over fist. It costs $40 a barrel to transfer oil by rail but $10 by pipeline.
ReplyDeleteAye.
DeleteAnother hit on the 'Weather Cult' as a scam.
Golly Gee Batman...I wonder which is more likely a threat to the environment...
... a broken oil pipeline...
...or a oil tanker car derailment?
When a train carrying oil derails, it's not unheard of for 100 people to die because of it. Just look up "Lac-Megantic" for a real world example of what happens when anti-pipeline insanity wins the day.
Delete"Lac-Megantic" was bad, for sure, but it was also a perfect storm of stupid. It was an unmanned runaway train, on an undermanned, low budget operation.
DeleteDarwin bought Murphy a beer or two on that one.
I'm waiting for someone to poke a hole in one of the pressure vessels on a LNG carrier with a 50 BMG.
Actually there is some merit. In urban Japan, the taxis run on LNG.
ReplyDeleteSame as Eastern Europe pretty easy conversion...
DeleteMany years ago I ran my pickup on propane. Slightly less power and mileage, but back then it was a lot cheaper. My guess is that as usage increases, price will spiral upwards even though supply will remain plentiful.
ReplyDeleteMy propane delivery company has been in business since the '40s. At one time all their delivery rigs were propane powered. It seems like a natural fit, doesn't it?
DeleteThose trucks needed engine overhauls once a year. As soon as the trucks themselves were worn out they switched back to diesels. It seems a propane engine provides no upper end lubrication and is very hard on engines.
The savings in fuel didn't justify the cost of annual motor overhauls.