UPDATE: Part 2 of the series includes this thumbnail history of pipeline regulation: "The same pattern has been repeated ever since - explosion, deaths, reform." Maybe NC could learn for the experience of others and skip the explosion and death part?

END UPDATE

Pennsylvania's regulators don't handle those pipelines, and acknowledge they don't even know where they are. And when he reported what he saw to a federal oversight agency, an inspector told him there was nothing he could do, either.

PA was unprepared to deal with its natural gas boom.

We know North Carolina's laws are not up to date in some relevant areas, which is one good reason not to rush to punch holes in the ground.

Comments

[RBM]

I have that very same article bookmarked in my browser presently to post here. I came looking for a related thread of yours to add it to but found none in the first 2 pages of this blog.

Glad to see you posted it.

My source was The Oil Drum Drumbeat.

[Hugh]

The link to the PA article supports the recent flurry of media articles that there is a shortage of qualified welders in the country.

[polifrog]

The European way: (EU constitution)

Build the school, pour the sidewalks, and when the students cut their own paths due to poor planning, force them back on the concrete. Never mind the inefficiencies of long walks.

The American way: (US Constitution)

Build the school and when students cut paths poor the concrete to width indicated by the path.

How far down the rabbit hole of preplanning do we need to go before get to work? There is nothing wrong with making laws as the need arrises.

[Dale]

Ex post facto laws used to be unconstitutional.

The need is before the situation is FUBAR.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Yeah Ed, it's much better to punch into the ground those who've spent years telling you that North Carolina's oversight/laws (in a lot of areas) leaves much to be desired.

Then tell them it's all about them. Ooo-rah!

It would be fine, Poli, with making laws as the need arises - IF WE ACTUALLY MADE THEM.

But it's too easy to shoot the messenger.

[Bill Bush]

In my experience, making up rules as you go along leaves you with a grandfathered-in group who were the impetus for the formulation of rules who get to go on their merry way unhindered, while guaranteed resentment builds among the newly-restricted latecomers. Both groups unite to obfuscate, delay and water down any eventually-proposed rules, and you may just as well not have bothered at all.

People who don't want government to work can usually make sure it doesn't. The Grover Norquist school of planned failure has had enough graduating classes for this observer to think it should lose its accreditation.

[Thomas]

Ed, I think I'm joining you in the "Polifrog is having us on" camp.

[polifrog]

Dale:

Ex post facto laws used to be unconstitutional.

Wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. See a problem, put an end to its continuance. No need to make it retroactive.

Bill:

In my experience, making up rules as you go along leaves you with a grandfathered-in group who were the impetus for the formulation of rules who get to go on their merry way unhindered, while guaranteed resentment builds among the newly-restricted latecomers.

Good point, Bill.

I wonder how we should predict all circumstances, all ramifications; the past is debatable enough, imagine the quagmire of debating future possibility of needed regulation. The questions of whether this posses a risk to that an how much could be endless. As I mentioned, it becomes an inconclusive rabbit hole.

This is, of course, a quite useful avenue for those who "have it in" for energy production.

It is best to go forward and create law as needed.

If the environmental mess we found ourselves in in the early 70's and the subsequent highly successful repair has thought us anything, it is that corrective action is far less permanent than the doomsayers would have us believe.

We should be careful of becoming a nation bound by the indecisive.

Thomas:

Ed, I think I'm joining you in the "Polifrog is having us on" camp.

Why do commenters say this? My rational is frequently on display and on those occasions it is obvious I attempt to make it obvious.

What is your rational for claiming that I am having folks on?

[Thomas]

I assume you meant rationale.

My rationale is that it seems doubtful to me that someone could be intelligent enough to construct some of the sentences you put together and still say such idiotic things.

[polifrog]

You're right, rational.

And thanks; this sort of scolding helps me remember terms I should double check. For a person who thinks by way of rational formation the irrational nature of spelling has always proven a high hurdle for me. I tend to think of it as a deformity in this online public world of written word that I can only imperfectly hide via the mascara of spell-check.

Conservative, therefore idiotic is not a rationale.

[Dale]

polifrog -

The problem is that there are no defined remedies and penalties. If the risks are negligible, make some legally binding commitments.

If someone's well goes bad: Oil company CEO comes over and drinks the water until a fresh water line is installed. One hundred randomly selected oil company employees are fired and lose all pension rights. CEO still comes over to drink water with 27 minutes notice.

[Fred Gregory]

US Navy paying $15/gallon for green fuel

"With President Obama delaying the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would facilitate access to the estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in North America, the United States Navy is reportedly slated to spend $12 million at a rate of $15 per gallon on a biofuel-gasoline blend -- a purchase justified by the proposition that dependence on oil is a national security threat.

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy," observes Hot Air's J.E. Dyer. "Glauthier worked – shock, shock – on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill"

Corruption is thy name !

[RBM]

slated to spend $12 million at a rate of $15 per gallon on a biofuel-gasoline blend

-Fred Gregory

Noted that has NOT actually happened yet. I'll believe it if and when it does happen. Hype and biofuels go together.

$15 is at least improvement over
previous purchases:

Last September, the Defense Energy Support Center, which oversees procurement of biofuel for the Navy, paid $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel. That came to about $67.50 per gallon, compared to the typical cost of about $2.94 per gallon for its standard fuel, JP-5.

Or the ones from the late Solazyme which came in at:

$8.5 million for 20,000 gallons comes to exactly $425/gallon. $200,000 for 1500 gallons is $133/gallon.

Shucks, $15/gal deserves a Nobel Prize, if it happens. /sarcasm

[RBM]

WSJ has a good encapsulation piece out on The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle

It's pertinent to present gas situation. Read for details.

The closing is what I got a real kick out of - hammer meat nail ! -

To recap: Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.