Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (185803)	9/26/2014 2:53:11 AM
From: JimisJim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206338

Yeah, they apparently shut down for 10 weeks... still, if there's no rail capacity -- and even with approvals, it would take some years to build a pipeline, so they must seek out alternatives -- I understand a lot of coal and oil use the Mississippi at times and of course there's a lot of trucking (but that's so inefficient I would think)... doesn't help with the ng, but there's so much "product" that needs to get from the Bakken and Alberta, in the short term, some of these more expensive alternate transport means may come into increasing play... An enterprising person/company might even figure out how to build LNG transport containers that could easily be loaded onto flatbed trucks or rail, and/or be loaded into river barges and/or great lakes freighters -- in other words design an efficient LNG container that could be used in any transport mode rather than build specific carriers like tankers, special rail cars/tankers, special barges and special ships... building the containers also allows you to reduce or increase supply of them more finely than risking a ship that can only transport LNG that may go idle for periods of time... don't even have to sell them; lease them (the containers)... I'm sure there are many obstacles for this idea to be practical, but that's what engineers are for, eh?