Thanks for weighing in, Andrew. I agree that pricing is the effective signal in this market; note that there are not major investments being made in infrastructure like refining, because there are not secure long-term new supplies. This is an opportunist industry at this point. Saudi pricing leverage is having greater effect than activism, unfortunately.
If I were dictator there would be a tax to level prices, neutralize price wars and incentivize clean energy. Brian On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 7:06:06 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: > > With my moderator hat on.... > > If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be > helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. > > The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally > to significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will > it do this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is > off-topic. > > Without my moderator hat on... > > My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations > are far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what > environmentalists call "site battles" (squabbling over this-or-that piece > of infrastructure). Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational > decisions. > > As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age > to redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. > >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
