Should Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline?

The pipeline is a net loss for the United States, and US consumers. American consumers would pay more for gasoline, and the American public would be on the hook for all the environmental damage. We gain nothing, and lose a lot. That's the bottom line.

I'd rather import oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.
And at $100 a barrel, somebody is going to buy it. Oil is a global commodity.
We'd be on the hook for all the environmental damage? Not Canadians?



National security doing an oil crisis?
More trade with our nearest neighbor?
Oil pipeline jobs?
Those seem to outweigh any negatives.


Once again I just can't agree with your impeccable logic.
This one is a no brainer.
Just saying yes creates 1000's of jobs, more than the government gets spending billions on Soylendras.
 
I'd rather import oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.
And at $100 a barrel, somebody is going to buy it. Oil is a global commodity.
We'd be on the hook for all the environmental damage? Not Canadians?



National security doing an oil crisis?
More trade with our nearest neighbor?
Oil pipeline jobs?
Those seem to outweigh any negatives.


Once again I just can't agree with your impeccable logic.
This one is a no brainer.
Just saying yes creates 1000's of jobs, more than the government gets spending billions on Soylendras.

None of that oil will be consumed in the United States. That is the only reason to build the pipeline is so that the US has less oil.

So for some reason you believe that having less oil available to the US market is good for national security. :crazyeye:
 
None of that oil will be consumed in the United States. That is the only reason to build the pipeline is so that the US has less oil.

So for some reason you believe that having less oil available to the US market is good for national security. :crazyeye:

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
 
This one is a no brainer.
Just saying yes creates 1000's of jobs, more than the government gets spending billions on Soylendras.
1000's of jobs? No, that's pretty unlikely. 100's, at best.

Research and investment in sustainable power generation and storage actually does produce thousands of jobs. So if it's jobs you're after, you should be advocating more widespread implementation of new energy schemes, not old ones.

EDIT:
from politifact:
"Approximately 10,000 construction workers engaged for 4-to 8-month seasonal construction periods (approximately 5,000 to 6,000 per construction period) would be required to complete the proposed project [a complex, two-year project]. When expressed as average annual employment, this equates to approximately 3,900 jobs."

The analysis noted that 90 percent of those jobs would come from "a unique national labor force that is highly specialized in pipeline construction techniques." It also confirmed that there would be few long-term jobs, something on the order of 35.
 
What is the assurance that the oil would stay exclusively within the American market? If it does, and the price drops, what does that do to domestic drillers?
 
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


It's already coming to US refineries. The Keystone pipeline will take it through the US and to foreign ports.
 
[G]iven the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them how do you see that fight going? The only thing not approving the pipeline seems to accomplish is to deny the economy much needed stimulus.

So your position is that we should take short-term stimulus (tiny at best) and in exchange we impose long-term environmental and economic harm to ourselves? No Thanks.

There was a report recently released that said if things continue on as they are, by 2047 most of our cities will have hotter years every year than the current hottest year on record. Think about what that means for a moment. Shipping will become more expensive too so if you think that we can just continue this way indefinitely you're wrong.

If we want to see less carbon intensive energy use in China and elsewhere we need to stop importing so much of their exports. Basically, make it such that if you use a process that is detrimental to our long term interests then we won't do be doing business with you unless you agree to make some changes.
 
What is the assurance that the oil would stay exclusively within the American market? If it does, and the price drops, what does that do to domestic drillers?

I think I remember someone doing an analysis somewhere and concluding that there would not be nearly enough oil added to the American market to really affect the price, or to even affect it at all. There was also something about supply and demand working slightly differently and it not mattering anyway, but I can't remember a single detail. It could have all been told to me by Moses in a dream for all I know, but maybe somebody knows what I'm talking about.
 
Yeah, he probably should, but only in exchange for something, like maybe getting rid of the debt ceiling, or immigration reform.
 
I think I remember someone doing an analysis somewhere and concluding that there would not be nearly enough oil added to the American market to really affect the price, or to even affect it at all. There was also something about supply and demand working slightly differently and it not mattering anyway, but I can't remember a single detail. It could have all been told to me by Moses in a dream for all I know, but maybe somebody knows what I'm talking about.

Going along the same idea that they're too little bang for too much buck, the carbon emissions would be immense:

James Hansen said a "conservative" estimate would be that around half of carbon deposits are eventually extracted, leading him to estimate around 160 billion tonnes of carbon which would release
587 GtCO2 when used.

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) currently estimates just 17% would be ultimately recoverable although they say they haven't completely surveyed the resource. This lower estimate would result in wells-to-wheels emissions of
180 GtCO2.

An average recovery figure for oil industry currently is listed at around 35%. This would result in wells-to-wheels emissions of
361 GtCO2.

The World Resources Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) lists cumulative CO2 emissions from 1850-2008 by nation in billions of tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) including: USA = 345;
EU = 314;
China = 113; Germany =82;
UK = 69;
Japan = 47;
France = 33;
India = 30 and
Canada = 26.
Either USA+China or EU+China total less than Hansen's 50% estimate.
The US Department of Energy estimates global coal, oil and natural gas burning from 1752 through 2008:
Coal: 616 GtCO2;
Oil: 450 GtCO2;
Gas: 165 GtCO2.
Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information

So even the lowest estimate of 17% recovery will result in half as much co2 added to the atmosphere as all of the USA's cumulative carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution :eek: :run:
 
Personally I'd love to see higher gas taxes. Anything we can do to encourage more efficient ways of getting around are a benefit to all of society.
 
The current system is fairly beneficial to Americans. As Cutlass says, the oil is currently landlocked. It gets dumped into the middle USA at a fairly steep discount compared to global oil prices.

The Keystone Pipeline is an attempt to ship the oil all the way to Floridian(ish) refineries, where the oil can then be sold at international prices. Any Americans wanting to buy the oil would have to compete to purchase that oil.

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.
 
I seem to remember the only real objection by the Obama administration was the routing the pipeline over areas where it clearly shouldn't be located. That even the states which could have had their groundwater endangered by the proposed route were overwhelmingly opposed.

Has the route changed?
 
Top Bottom