Today 4:38 am
Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑ You are the one who didn't read it, fruitcake.
It IS true that I scanned it - because the author is a rambler. That you believe a rambling opinion piece with no receipts or sources is evidence reflects on your intellect, there, Sparky.
That guy can run his hole all day, and it is still cheaper to pipe gas than it is to liquify it, ship it across an ocean, and regasify it. Are you even an adult, Skippy? On what planet do adults even TRY to argue that oceanic delivery isn't riskier and costlier than a pipe line - ESPECAILLY when the substance shipped has to be liquified and then regasified before it can be used? Are you a day drinker, you fruitcake?
A "rambler"?? And you took 3 paragraphs to try to make that point??
Fact is, with the COSTS of maintaining an AGING and decrepit pipeline, a LEAKING ONE that loses product, and the costs to BUILD A NEW ONE makes LNG more attractive PRICE WISE no matter what it takes to get it to the point of origin. NO ONE said it was cheaper, but well within the margin to be cost effective. But had you actually READ the article, you might have known that.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.