Should Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline?

Then I'm sure you will be in favor of new emission limits on power plants, which is just as popular:
I'm not the one who claimed voter support for my position here. That was Murky. I was pointing out that the situation wasn't as he envisioned if he actually believed that to be the case.
 
I'm not the one who claimed voter support for my position here. That was Murky. I was pointing out that the situation wasn't as he envisioned if he actually believed that to be the case.

What was was saying was that if the voters had wanted the laundry list of the hostage takers GOP's demands they would have voted for Romney. One of those is the Keystone XL pipeline. People ignorant of the consequences would probably say/click yes if they think they would benefit from it. It also would depend on how the question was framed when conducting the poll. Like say, if you wanted people to vote yes on something you might frame in a way that was positive. In the case of Keystone XL, they might ask something like "Are you in favor jobs created by allowing the Keystone XL project to go forward?" Anyone ignorant of what Keystone XL was and its consequences would probably click/say yes.
 
Less oil available?!
Is the pipeline pumping the stuff towards Canada?

This is twisting facts on their head to an absurd degree!


Are there any military experts on this site that would agree with me that having the oil flowing through our hands into our refineries from Canada through a pipeline would be a huge boon during a world oil crisis?

1)Oil imports from overseas stop.
2)Our passing along the refined oil from Canada into the world market stops.
3)North America wins :D

If I remember correctly, the pipeline is intended to bring the oil to the port of New Orleans so that it can be moved by ship through the Panama Canal and into China. This is expected to be much cheaper than moving the oil over the Rocky Mountains to a port on the west coast of Canada, since gravity would help rather than hinder the transportation.

It might make oil cheaper in the Louisiana area, but is expected to make it more expensive for those in the great lakes area. There is already plenty of oil in the gulf, and the refineries there are more vulnerable to hurricanes.
 
"Do you support increased pollution, supplying our enemies with cheap energy, and spoiling the aquifers that millions of middle class families and farmers rely on?"

This is easy - it's like I'm having supper with my dad! He was all in favor of the government's Verizon phone record data sweeps & logging all internet conversations. "I've got nothing to hide!" ...until I framed it with 2nd amendment gun-grabbing :ninja:
 
For the record, given the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them what purpose would this serve?
Okay, let's establish something right off: It is HARPER who wants to do this. Stephen Harper likes to think he speaks for this country's people, but he doesn't. There are many Canadian scientists and environmentalists who object to the pipeline. The scientists are muzzled and Harper and his cronies call environmentalists and others who prefer clean water, clean air, and living wildlife TERRORISTS. Yes, even people like me, who signs petitions (for all the good that does), writes letters, etc. are considered terrorists in the ruling party's eyes.

But then what else should we expect from a government that allowed a senior cabinet minister to compare people who object to the government prying into our personal emails to people who engage in and support child porn?

It would tell them we do not approve of their environment destroying ways. That we all need to clean up our energy production. Fight climate change.
Again, do not say it's all Canadians who are in favor of this pipeline. I'm definitely not, and I'm an Albertan.

As a Canadian I'm not sure how I feel about this. The whole tar sands thing seems to be smeared in controversy - so I'm not exactly sure what the facts are. If it's possible to get the oil out of these sands without causing environmental damage, then I'm all for it.
Warpus, please check out the CBC site for all the articles about Fort McMurray, tailing ponds, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to extract the oil without causing environmental damage. There is so much damage that's already been done. The Athabasca River is but one example of this. The fish in that river have cancer. I can't remember how many birds have died from being poisoned and drowned in the tailing ponds.

I mean, seriously, how could it do anything other than raise gas prices in the US? Canada is currently one of America's top oil sources. But we have them captive, because they cannot export their oil to any nation other than the US. Oh, Canadians make the claim that they could. That they could build pipelines east or west instead of south. But yet they haven't actually done it. Why? Well, tar sands oil is expensive to produce to begin with. And then you're either going to pipeline it east, 2500-3000 miles, before you get to the only deep water ice free port in eastern Canada, which is Halifax, or you are going to pump it 1000 miles west...

and over an mile in altitude high...

to clear the Rocky Mountains.

Neither one of those routes can be cost justified. So the Canadians can use it themselves, or they can sell it to the US, or they can leave it in the ground.

Or they can talk the US into approving the pipeline, and sell it to Latin America, the Caribbean basin, or China.

And that means more price competition in the US domestic market.
Stephen Harper wants to do one or the other, and thank goodness the people of British Columbia (the sane ones, anyway) are doing their best to quash the notion of sending the oil through their province and risking the destruction of one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world (on the coast).

Yes, I live in Calgary and have O&G companies as clients.
Therefore a Reform-Alliance-in-Tory-clothing (aka fake Conservative) supporter? :huh:

Environmentally, this would increase the price of the oil, and thus increase the benefit of extraction efforts. More oil would be sold. Discounting the environment, this would be of good benefit to the Canadian corporations that have access to the oil sands. I don't know if it would benefit Canadian workers, given that the level of employment in Alberta is so high already.

If I were an Albertan, I'd not want the pipeline, because the pipeline won't really benefit Albertans (i.e., there're not going to be many new jobs created). It will increase the rate of extraction, which is problematic, because it's not like the price of oil is going down anytime soon. What would be best for Canadians would the creation of an intra-Canada pipeline to Canadian refineries. This would be job-creating and allow us to jack up the price of the oil, too.
Okay, awhile back you got in a huff about my contradicting you about the Alberta government being "fairly benign." If the pipeline went ahead, and if the province got tons more money from it, what do you think Allison Redford's Conservatives would do with it? Would she put it into education, social programs, fixing the highways and other infrastructure that's been needing fixing for so many years, hospitals, nursing homes and properly trained people to work in them, etc.? Or would she instead put it into whatever benefited the party and the corporations (and what would please Harper)? It's safe to say she wouldn't put it into research on clean(er) energy.

And what if our next premier is somebody more like Ralph Klein? He was more concerned about getting drunk, acting contemptuously toward the homeless and disabled, and pushing the gambling industry, than he was about actually giving a damn about people who weren't his cronies or who could make him rich(er).
 
If the Arctic continues to be navigable via open water part of the year, would that change the pipeline's prospects?


The problem being that oil field produce year round. So they have to ship their product year round. They can't take whole seasons of production shut down. That's why North Slope oil is shipped out of Valdez, it's a port opened year round.
 
Thanks for the link. It has some other good statistics like 84% of Democrats in favor of expanding alternative energy.



From this one graph along we can tell which party still has some sanity and morality left.

Yup, the Republicans.

Its nice to see a group of people understand you can't just mandate 100mpg cars.
There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline and we've definitely hit the teeth of diminishing returns.

Expand alternative energy? :lol:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/13/german-green-energy-bluster-running-out-of-wind/

There is little mystery regarding a clear lack of clamor for wind in the energy marketplace. Namely, taxpayers and ratepayers are recognizing that the subsidy-dependent and performance-costly industry makes no economic sense.



Supply and demand MUST be centrally planned.
People just don't know how to spend money.
Only the government knows what's best.
Intentions always matter more than results.


**Edit**
Oh, alternative energy research. That's not so bad. The world could really use fusion power.
 
Yup, the Republicans.

Its nice to see a group of people understand you can't just mandate 100mpg cars.
There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline and we've definitely hit the teeth of diminishing returns.
true, but the republicans aren't taking that position, right? They're saying all government regulation is bad, not that 100mpg mandates aren't realistic. If they were saying that, I'd agree with them. Which is why I want to see more development and implementation of full-electric, hybrid, natural gas, and human powered transportation. All of these are alternative energy, and all of them have been expanding rapidly in the past decade.
Expand alternative energy? :lol:
:rolleyes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/13/german-green-energy-bluster-running-out-of-wind/

Supply and demand MUST be centrally planned.
People just don't know how to spend money.
Only the government knows what's best.
Intentions always matter more than results.


**Edit**
Oh, alternative energy research. That's not so bad. The world could really use fusion power.

...and from your own link, it seems that the lack of demand for the wind power is more due to the fact that there is already so much online that - and here's the kicker!! -
"Plans for a cap on electricity prices proposed by pro-business Economics Minister Phillip Rosler and Environment Minister Peter Altmaier have made wind investors jittery.

The German energy industry group BDEW has said that the next government must make energy policy reform a top priority. They warn that the surge of renewables is increasingly clogging the power grid and eating into profits of large power stations."


Oh my, surprise surprise. Big vested interests in dirty industries are using their entrenched market position to influence policy and hold up progress.

It's nice to see a group of people who can see the writing on the walls: the days of oil are numbered.
 
It's nice to see a group of people who can see the writing on the walls: the days of oil are numbered.

I'm doubtful, even after we transition completely away from oil as a transport of energy, and extracting more oil is a net energy loss, it will still be worth extracting for all the other stuff we do with it.
 
yes, I don't dispute that. But the reliance on liquid hydrocarbons for transportation is the dominant model currently, and that can't last much longer. I'm sure there will be natural gas power plants all over the place in a hundred years even if there isn't a single gas-powered consumer product.

Alternative energy transportation is gaining traction:
Imagine an electric Pepsi delivery truck in Manhattan. It makes dozens of stops at the same locations, day in and day out. Now what if at each stop—or every other stop—it could wirelessly top up its battery pack as the driver drops off another case of sugar water. That’s what Hevo Power is aiming to do with a new wireless charging system that blends into its surroundings by aping a manhole.
source: http://arstechnica.com/business/201...g-wireless-ev-chargers-disguised-as-manholes/
 
Why don't they just ship it by ocean? Is cost effectiveness really better in a pipeline vs tanker? Are they going to use a pipeline to speculate in realestate, using eminent domain? What will be the limits of the domain etc?

Reality is the pipeline is already under construction. The issues is more the routes for the pipeline, and which states are on-board for it. The prime route is definitely not the Rockies (although they have that line to the midwest), but through farmland and near watersheds (at what risk?).
 
Why don't they just ship it by ocean? Is cost effectiveness really better in a pipeline vs tanker? Are they going to use a pipeline to speculate in realestate, using eminent domain? What will be the limits of the domain etc?

Reality is the pipeline is already under construction. The issues is more the routes for the pipeline, and which states are on-board for it. The prime route is definitely not the Rockies (although they have that line to the midwest), but through farmland and near watersheds (at what risk?).


The least cost route from the oil sands to the ocean is via Texas.
 
Most plastics are still oil based right? As long as that continues oil is way to valuable to completely go obsolete. Probably would be much better off stopping using it a fuel so it can be saved for more practical applications in the long run.
 
For the record, given the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them what purpose would this serve?

I would suggest you goto China and breath in the air there for a week come back and tell me about how Libertarian no government regulation for pollution is working out for China?

EDIT: actually why Not given that the refineries are in Red States, it will mean US jobs and with States opting out of Obamacare the pollution wont really matter.
 
I'd predict a yes from our Warlord in Chief.

Spoiler :
I also imagine raising US gas prices would bias people towards alternative energies. Tell me where that goes wrong.
 
Top Bottom