• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Natural Gas Crisis: Greens Engineer another Disaster

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: AvesPKS


What do you mean, "freeing up land for NG"?
Sorry if I used the term "land". I am aware that large amounts of oil and NG are found and extracted off the coast. Just because demolition and construction is under water does not mean that it has no effects.
As I was given to understand, the holdup was not on supply, but on deepwater ports to offload the LNG...and all deepwater ports require an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) as per NEPA.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: AvesPKS


What do you mean, "freeing up land for NG"?
Sorry if I used the term "land". I am aware that large amounts of oil and NG are found and extracted off the coast. Just because demolition and construction is under water does not mean that it has no effects.
As I was given to understand, the holdup was not on supply, but on deepwater ports to offload the LNG...and all deepwater ports require an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) as per NEPA.

That's cool, although I have no idea what an EIS means or considers, I am glad to know that some sort of impact is considered (I'm sure it is for all fuel sources). My main point is still that we need to be flexible in our fuel types/sources (as well as learn to be more efficient in our use). Overdependance on one type/source leads to damning concequences when environmental or political events affect supply or distribution.

Also, I am of the opinion that (with no scientific evidence to back it up) concentrating on one particular type of exploration/extraction is likely to create situations in which existing natural equilibriums in the area are more likely to be lost. By diversifying fuel types, we also diversify extraction and exploration locations (including those for renewable energies), thereby reducing the impact at any one location. The reduced impact should make it easier for natural equilibriums to be reestablished --note that does not mean that they will be the same, just reestablished.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Oh yeah, The other part of my point is that in a capitalist society like the one we live in, if a resource is too expensive, we can figure out an alternative. If there is not an alternative, then that resouce is not too expensive.
 

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Oh yeah, The other part of my point is that in a capitalist society like the one we live in, if a resource is too expensive, we can figure out an alternative. If there is not an alternative, then that resouce is not too expensive.
That's the sticking point I have with this discussion. I was given to understand that there was no problem with supply, except a limitation on our ability to offload LNG fast enough to meet demand. Thus the necessitation of opening the new deepwater ports (3 new ones, to be exact).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

Most Americans don't know it, but the price of natural gas has increased as much as 700% in the last three years. That's what happens in the marketplace when an essential commodity becomes scarce. It's not that there aren't huge amounts of natural gas. The problem is that access to it has been effectively blocked.





"We're not running out of natural gas, and we're not running out of places to look for natural gas," says Keith Rattie, president of Questar, an energy developer. "However, we are running out of places we are allowed to look for gas."





Why do you think that is? Perhaps it is the same reason that the Clinton-Gore administration put some of the richest supplies of high quality coal off limits to development and fought access to the oil reserves in Alaska? In the case of natural gas The Bush administration's Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham will tell you that environmental restrictions have put nearly half of the huge natural gas reserves on federal lands off limits to use. When the laws concerning federal lands were first written, they included the sale of natural resources. It was understood they were integral to the economy. Environmental laws forbid it. That's why thousands of acres of our national forests just burn to cinders every year.

I'd like to say that article is nothing but hot air. I don't read right wing progandist websites for science news, especially enviromental related news. I suggest you don't either, it keeps the brain cell count in healthy amounts.
Oh, so you only read sites you agree with. Somehow I am not surprised.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY