It is true that gas produced here is physically used here. However, to the extent gas production in the area exceeds local demand there is ample capacity to move gas to the rest of the US. The completion of the Rockies Express pipeline (1.8 Bcf/d capacity) and the Ruby Pipeline (1.5 Bcf/d) have brought total CO/UT/WY natural gas export capacity to the rest of the country to over 10 Bcf/d versus roughly 1.8 Bcf/d in 1980. There is roughly 5.5 Bcf/d of export capacity out of the Cheyenne Hub located on Hwy 85 near the CO/WY border. The consequence has been a dramatic narrowing of the price difference between the Rockies and the rest of the country.

The link herein leads to a list of current North American LNG terminals. Note that the only terminals that can export LNG can only do so by re-exporting LNG that was previously received into the terminal. None of these terminals have facilities in place to take natural gas from a US source and liquify it for export. Hence, exports are limited to the re-export of a foreign source that has already arrived as liquid.
http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/LNG-...

The primary irrigated crop on the Colorado plains that competes for water is corn. Corn is primarily going to making ethanol. The US has tripled its exports of ethanol to Brazil in the past year. So I can't get very wound up that water going to oil and gas operations is going to take away ethanol from Brazilians. As to Ms. Foster's claim of LNG exports on the west coast exporting natural gas, there are no LNG terminals in CA, OR or WA of any kind, import or export. She has been given bad information.

Based on your remarks, I don't think you could see or believe any reason other than racism for the restoration of power to that neighborhood first. As long as more whites in absolute terms were without power, you would see no other explanation as that is the consequence of metaphorical cataracts.

There is a clear difference between you and me. If a city electric utility of 1,000,000 million following a storm had 1,000 customers without power evenly distributed in the city except for 100 that were clustered in a neighborhood of just 1,000 homes, I would send the repair crews first to that neighborhood as a matter of efficiency. You would send them house to house throughout the town without regard for the concentration in one location. If that neighborhood with the 100 without power were largely Hispanic and the rest of the town white, you would call me a racist because in absolute terms, more white people were without power. I of course, would disagree. I don’t think you should manage a utility.

The what does the following from her editorial represent: "There's a clear achievement gap amongst readers in Colorado. In 2010, 79 percent of white students were proficient in reading, compared with 50 percent of all black, Latino and Native American students." Looks like a statistic to me.

I don't know what your disagreement with me is. I am supporting spending money where is will have the greatest proportional impact = area of most disadvantaged kids = the minorities group in Ms. Stutzman's editorial per the statistics she cites. Perhaps some reading literacy assistance should be directed to you.

I believe money should be spent where it will have the greatest proportional impact. Since the data in cited in Ms. Stutzman's identifies groups with greater needs based on ethnicity, then as a taxpayer I would rather my money if it is to be spent be spent where it will do the most good and likely save me more money down the road. For me, it is economic pragmatism.

I don't believe Ms. Tonsk'si quote of Ms. Stutzman'a editorial interjects racism. Do you believe Ms. Stutzman interjected racism in her editorial?

RTD's promise is give me your money now and maybe I will give you a train in 30 years. This is spite of missing every deadline and cost estimate and failing to properly consult with the BNSF. Did they think Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway owns the BNSF) was some benevolent operator?