General Discussion

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

47. Your point about developers is not true,...

Thu May 24, 2012, 09:13 AM

May 2012

...at least not in my experience, which spans 30 years. I've never seen developers of energy projects try to do it that way. In any case, it would be difficult or impossible to finance a project that had not complied with all of the required regulatory reviews and received all of its permits. Lenders are very risk averse and hire independent consultants to confirm that a project has satisfied all of the requirements before they lend money. The loan is usually secured by the project itself, so they don't want to risk having a project they financed shut down after the fact because the developer failed to comply with the permitting requirements.

I agree with your point about the problem being with the approval process.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mitt Romney wants to lay an oil pipeline over this water supply... [View all] kentuck May 2012 OP

I have no problem with it badtoworse May 2012 #1

Why do you support it? kentuck May 2012 #2

I do! rufus dog May 2012 #3

No reward? badtoworse May 2012 #7

So instead of current jobs at refineries in the midwest the jobs get transferred to Houston rufus dog May 2012 #11

What capacity are the mid-west refineries operating at? badtoworse May 2012 #18

Not to mention every expert says it will raise gas prices. FarLeftFist May 2012 #43

It makes sense... kentuck May 2012 #44

No, the oil WILL go on the world market. Just like our Gulf oil does, Alaskan oil does.... rustydog May 2012 #55

Why should the oil not be sold at the world price? I would expect that. badtoworse May 2012 #58

Some group or NIMBY will have a problem with it. Yes well, I would rather have a few delays yellowcanine May 2012 #4

I'll bet you're one of the ones screaming when the lights go out because of inadequate reserves badtoworse May 2012 #6

Back at ya! rufus dog May 2012 #12

That was market manipulation in 2000, largely by one company - Enron badtoworse May 2012 #14

Ok don't assume. You don't have a clue what I complain about. Even if I did complain the way you yellowcanine May 2012 #13

Some practices are very damaging to the environment, some only involve manageable risk badtoworse May 2012 #16

Ok, you made a crack about Nimbyism. I pointed out that Nimbyism isn't all bad - that it can stop yellowcanine May 2012 #21

OK, I'll give you that NIMBYs sometimes stop bad projects. badtoworse May 2012 #24

That's better. IMO a good project will easily be able to stand up in the face of arguments only yellowcanine May 2012 #27

The biggest problem is the lack of a time clock. badtoworse May 2012 #39

That's a problem with our courts/approval process, not nimbyism per se. yellowcanine May 2012 #46

Your point about developers is not true,... badtoworse May 2012 #47

It is in mine. We had a case just about a month ago where the developers actually yellowcanine May 2012 #52

I'm not familiar with the case so I can't comment badtoworse May 2012 #53

Well there have been some pretty big boondoggles so I am not so sanguine as you. yellowcanine May 2012 #54

Cost overruns are a completely different matter badtoworse May 2012 #57

Well gee you just said banks won't finance projects until all of the bases are covered. yellowcanine May 2012 #59

You are correct, but the cost overruns are equity's risk badtoworse May 2012 #60

And if the cost overruns enough the equity is tied up in an uncompleted project. yellowcanine May 2012 #61

That sometimes happens badtoworse May 2012 #62

"With few exceptions, they operate safely." underseasurveyor May 2012 #9

Gasland. trumad May 2012 #15

Gasland is a crock badtoworse May 2012 #17

I knew you come back and post that shit. trumad May 2012 #19

I follow developments in the natural gas and electric power businesses for a living badtoworse May 2012 #20

Hmmm. 99Forever May 2012 #22

You know nothing about our investment criteria... badtoworse May 2012 #25

Your words betray you. 99Forever May 2012 #41

My background is no secret on DU badtoworse May 2012 #45

sure trumad May 2012 #23

I've been down this road on DU before badtoworse May 2012 #29

So---you're a pro-Fracker? trumad May 2012 #31

I believe it can be done safely badtoworse May 2012 #33

Do you beleive that Nuclear Power can be done safely? trumad May 2012 #34

Yes, but I also believe that some of the design decisions that have been made were flawed. badtoworse May 2012 #48

The risk far out gains the rewards in mho. trumad May 2012 #51

So, let's slow down the drilling and let the technology catch up. blue neen May 2012 #35

It's already happening for economic reasons. badtoworse May 2012 #38

That's good, but it should also be happening for the good of the public. blue neen May 2012 #42

Well, let's highlight this (very close to Dimock): blue neen May 2012 #32

Good to know. I'll look into it. badtoworse May 2012 #36

Well, I guess it's not just "nimby's" that are concerned. blue neen May 2012 #26

Interesting, this is the first I've heard of a lender taking this position on a natural gas well. badtoworse May 2012 #28

It's been going on in other states; it's just starting to happen in PA. blue neen May 2012 #30

That's a fair point and it applies to than just well drilling badtoworse May 2012 #37

Infrastructure does not equal fracking chemicals. It's not the same at all... blue neen May 2012 #40

How about a wind turbine next door or a transmission line in your yard? badtoworse May 2012 #49

I think it's a bad idea, some places should be off limits to oil drilling and pipelines Uncle Joe May 2012 #5

No but then I don't think they should be able to continue using this water for irregation either. jwirr May 2012 #8

We don't know what's under the surface of the Earth KansDem May 2012 #10

i oppose everything mitt romney wants to do....period spanone May 2012 #50

Ditto goclark May 2012 #56