Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
Environmental oversight is great, but the construction itself is still destructive to the environment. Not sure why that's a controversial point for you.
Of course it is but so what? So is building roads, homes, commercial space, airports, baseball diamonds, solar farms, wind towers...literally every single thing ever built.
The only real question is the environmental harm outweighed by the economic benefit.
This is where so much of the green lobby simply look like morons; as if saying "but its bad for the environment" should end the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
So maybe investment into renewables is better than building more oil infrastructure?
It's not either or. In my province, our main industry is oil and gas but we also just adopted one of the world most progressive carbon taxes to fund green energy. People need to stop pretending the two are mutually exclusive.
We have a society to run and right now it runs off fossil fuel. That almost certainly wont be the case in the future but right now it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
Fracking brings down the cost of extraction. It's literally the best price control the oil industry has, start or continue fracking more and the business becomes more profitable. It increases the amount of recoverable oil in the formation. That's what DAPL would carry. Almost all of Bakken oil is fracked.
We were not talking about DAPL specifically so dont assume I know which of the thousands of pipelines being installed every year you are referring too. You are acting like US shale production is all oil and gas. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
You could build the pipeline, but if legislatures deem that fracking causes earthquakes and stops approving them, your pipeline may have to stop.
I would be happy to bet actual money against this.