On Aug 31, 4:30*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:05:52 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson









wrote:
On Aug 31, 4:04 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:26 am, "

wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:52:07 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
And Jesus mows my lawn.

Hiring illegals, again, huh.

Our oil masters must be a little worried. They're having the
President arrest quiet, well-behaved legal demonstrators in front of
the White House. Some big names along with hoi polloi. As they are
arrested, more come forward for the next day's demonstrations. The
people are determined not to let this [supply your epithet]
go forward.

HB

Sorry - I meant the pipeline fromCanadian oil shale down to the Gulf
of Mexico. Horrendous environmental consequences.

Worse than tankers, trains, trucks or any other way of moving oil?

Has to do with the environmental consequences of extracting oil from
shale. HUGE difference from extracting "light, sweet"crude oil (such
as produced by Libya!)

From "The Times of London"" back in Feb before the Libyan thing really
got going, why the oil markets were so jumpy:

""The secret lies not in the quantity but quality of Libyan oil. It is
'light' and 'sweet' . That's the oilman's jargon for describing oil as
having high relative density and low sulfur content. This makes the
oil particularly easy to refine. If the oil has a high sulfur content
it is called 'sour' .""

There is a lengthy report on problems of exploiting shale oil in the
U.S. at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34748.pdf.

The problems connected with such a long pipeline are environmental--
impact on land and wildlife and danger of breakage/spills along its
enormous length, traversing many populated US States. Elements of
the Obama administration have apparently given it the go-ahead, in
tune with oil industry plugs such as FuelFix's ""reassurance"" that
everything is going to be OK. Yeah, sure...

HB