joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
Mike's original question is not being answered. By any of you. There exist a number of possible futures: A ) The price of gas on the market remains active but close to current unit price for 'X' time frame. B ) The price decreases much further than the current level for 'X' time frame. C ) The level of price will rise and lower, be it in quick slopes or gradual progressions over 'X' time. D ) The price increases due to a number of factors (some of which exist outside of the the country) over 'X' time frame. E ) An alternative idea is create which makes the original concept either obsolete or irrelevant. Its hard to accurately predict which direction any of this goes. From a business stand point, it made sense to the entities involved from a profit level, in previous months/years. The view that price would increase with time, rather than decrease. Right now, it doesn't seem like a good business venture. But long term logistical planning is never for short term benefits. The assumption is prices will rise, and this pipeline will be profitable for the entities that control it. But when asked "who will benefit from this idea"? is brought up, reality is much different from the fantasy pushed by Republicans (like just about any of their other past schemes that have failed). The pipeline as I understand, runs through a wide number of states. That it will generated a few thousand temporary jobs (3-6 months in length) and afterward be operated by only 0.5-1% of the temporary jobs. The pipeline material will benefit the entities involved, but not the nation itself. Yet, the nation incurs all of the risk. So it brings up a logical question: Why should the nation incur the grand majority of the possible risk with virtually no gain? That's like saying "Go rob a bank for me, while I sit in my house and have total deniability if you get caught and jailed. I'll give a convenient excuse of no knowledge of the crazy plan, and you are truly off your rocker. But if you do succeed, I get 95% of the take." Does that sound like a good deal to make? Historical record: Democrats did try to pass a bill in Congress that would have forced all the material being transported via the pipeline be used for US Consumption. The reason was simple: If the USA was incurring the risk, the USA should get the benefits. Republicans shot it down.
|