The problem with gas in much of the US is that the current infrastructure is being used very close to maximum capacity already. And so to add a lot more consumption would require a massive investment in increasing core capacity. The existing pipelines can't be made to carry more. So 1000s of miles of new pipelines would have to be built. There are places in the US that would be OK with current trunk capacity, but in the most densely populated areas the lines just can't support much more usage.
Should Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline?
- Thread starter Murky
- Start date
The problem with gas in much of the US is that the current infrastructure is being used very close to maximum capacity already. And so to add a lot more consumption would require a massive investment in increasing core capacity. The existing pipelines can't be made to carry more. So 1000s of miles of new pipelines would have to be built. There are places in the US that would be OK with current trunk capacity, but in the most densely populated areas the lines just can't support much more usage.
Won't matter. The oil companies have already decided that Keystone did not make financial sense in the first place.
Ice_Tyrant
Prince
Just a few years ago I didn't understand why Obama wouldn't approve of it, if only just because it was going to happen anyway I figured. Kind of feel ashamed of myself now for thinking that way.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
You shouldn't, because you were correct to think that way. The only reason this is blocked is partisan politics. As soon as the other party has the upper hand, this deal or one like it will push through.
J
So we will have to wait at least until 2025?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
2017. I said the next change in party. In 2025 we might see another. By then it may be moot.
J
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If the Republicans get the White House and both houses of congress in 2016 by 2025 I expect EVERYTHING would be moot. The damage from the last Republican administration hasn't been undone yet. If we give them another chance at this point I'd guess it would be game over.
Obama and Clinton are both Democrats.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Pretty much, though the red states might have to pay an environmental price for leaks.
And if scientist are right the world will have to pay a price as humanity kicks the can down the road.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
They are going to have a President for the Impeach Clinton bandwagon?
This entire thread is like "Drill baby Drill 2.0"
First the democrats said that drilling for more oil won't lower oil prices (Alaska).
Then after the oil price crashed because too much oil was being drilled in northern USA on private land, they say a big fat oil pipeline from Canada is a bad idea.
Then in a year or two when oil is expensive again, they will say the pipeline might be worth it, but is too dangerous.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/08/keystone-pipeline-2/
It is no coincidence that Obama killed the pipeline days after Trudeau got elected in Canada.
A man who vowed not to build a pipeline west to British Columbia and go over the USA's head.
I suppose when oil prices go back up, the oil can just stay there in Canada with nowhere to go.
High gas prices tend to make liberals happy, so win-win there.
It's like if California was facing a 20 year drought that would depopulate half the state.
Libs would accept the drought rather than build a water pipeline down from Washington.
They would then tell you how impossible a water pipeline is while arguing the $100 billion railway from LA to San Francisco was totally worth it.
First the democrats said that drilling for more oil won't lower oil prices (Alaska).
Then after the oil price crashed because too much oil was being drilled in northern USA on private land, they say a big fat oil pipeline from Canada is a bad idea.
Then in a year or two when oil is expensive again, they will say the pipeline might be worth it, but is too dangerous.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/08/keystone-pipeline-2/
It is no coincidence that Obama killed the pipeline days after Trudeau got elected in Canada.
A man who vowed not to build a pipeline west to British Columbia and go over the USA's head.
I suppose when oil prices go back up, the oil can just stay there in Canada with nowhere to go.
High gas prices tend to make liberals happy, so win-win there.
It's like if California was facing a 20 year drought that would depopulate half the state.
Libs would accept the drought rather than build a water pipeline down from Washington.
They would then tell you how impossible a water pipeline is while arguing the $100 billion railway from LA to San Francisco was totally worth it.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Why would the pipeline benefit us? They already sell to us anyways. In fact, without the pipeline, we are the only ones they can sell it to. With the pipeline, they can sell the oil to other people to build it. Makes no sense for us to help them sell oil to other countries.
That is terrible logic.
Why did we not just keep Iraq's oil?
Why let Iraq sell their oil on the world market?
Should we not have made a law that they could only sell to the USA?
The USA is running a global order, one that we benefit tremendously from heading.
Our allies Japan and Europe have to import huge amounts of oil to run their economies. (98% and 77%)
We must import half our oil.
Whether it is patrolling the seas against pirates, supporting a barbaric nation like Saudi Arabia, or invading Iraq, securing oil supplies is a major strategic goal.
Heck, all the crap us and Russia are doing in Syria right now probably has something to do with oil and gas pipelines directed towards Europe.
The Keystone pipeline is a wonderful idea because the oil will physically run through our fingers before being exported around the world.
Yes, Canada will benefit moneywise because they will have more than 1 customer.
And we, the USA, WILL BENEFIT, because one day when the crap hits the fan and Iran closes the Persian Gulf for a few weeks, we can literally steal Canada's oil from our fancy new pipeline and pay them a "fair" price for it.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
We can do that now without the Pipeline. Because, see, they can't sell it to anyone else right now.
Sure, the oil may have to physically run through our fingers if the pipeline is there but right now it does that anyways, except it doesn't have anywhere to end up right now except us. We already have Canada's oil secured, building a pipeline allowing them to sell to other Non-USA countries would make it less secure. And its not like we can force them to pump oil into our pipeline if they just refuse to pump it anywhere.
We would have loved to keep all of Iraq's oil, but see the greedy companies that paid off their congressman wouldn't make as much money that way.
Sure, the oil may have to physically run through our fingers if the pipeline is there but right now it does that anyways, except it doesn't have anywhere to end up right now except us. We already have Canada's oil secured, building a pipeline allowing them to sell to other Non-USA countries would make it less secure. And its not like we can force them to pump oil into our pipeline if they just refuse to pump it anywhere.
We would have loved to keep all of Iraq's oil, but see the greedy companies that paid off their congressman wouldn't make as much money that way.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
I don't think that's a given.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
And shipped by rail and water , both of which are more environmentally hazardous than the pipeline.
J
Yeah, it is, in actual terms of affecting oil shipped, Keystone XL is pretty unimportant.
The only notable thing about Keystone XL is the media attention it generated.
Similar threads
- Locked
