Thanks for the video link, 8th.
I have to say that I found Schork's argument bizarrely self-contradictory. He claims that natural gas prices won't go higher, because (1) there is such an abundant supply of it and (2) because the environmentalists oppose its use (always the bogeymen of the energy people) and (3) because there is inadequate infrastructure for it. Ok, makes sense. Then, he goes on to say that the nuclear energy option is off the table, because of the tragedy in Japan, and we now have to depend on dirtier and more expensive forms of energy. Uh, duh. If we're going to be forced to depend on dirtier and more expensive sources of energy, doesn't it then follow that that natural gas is a viable alternative, even if it means a greater investment in the infrastructure build-out?
I'm not saying that Schork is necessarily wrong, but his arguments need to be subjected to more critical scrutiny.
Bladerunner
