Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

[W|M]

Laws stop mattering once you have enough money

 

[Old Hippy]

Tim, in a self reported anonymous survey of the top 1000 corporations in America, two thirds admitted to breaking environmental laws on a weekly basis. Never underestimate the aggressive risk taking corporate management is willing to go to regardless of ethics.

I'm surprised that two thirds are that honest to admit it...

 

[MobBoss]

It constantly amazes me how private citizens can be persuaded to argue for things like fracking or building pipelines. There is significant risk of grave environmental damage with little or no actual benefit to the vast majority of society, and somehow people are able to look at it and go, "Yep, of course we should do that." Blows my mind.

You don't think cheaper energy/petroleum is little to no benefit for the majority of society?

I know this is company sales talk, but reading this makes me wonder if this would be a safer type of pipeline than others previously? The data-point monitoring and remote shut-off control are pretty interesting. I wonder how that method of safety compares with other pipelines that have had issues as previously mentioned. http://www.keystone-xl.com/keystone...peline-ever-constructed-in-the-united-states/

Point being, simply because there have been spills before with other pipelines doesn't mean they cant improve the system and make it redundant enough to greatly minimize spill concerns.

 

[W|M]

What makes you think that cheaper operating costs means cheaper prices?

 

[MobBoss]

Who said anything about prices? Being a benefit to society means more than just being easy on the pocketbook, doesn't it?

 

[W|M]

You did

You don't think cheaper energy/petroleum is little to no benefit for the majority of society?

The only ones to profit from building a pipeline will be oil corporations. The problem with pipelines is that even with all these new safety features, eventually there will be a spill anyway, and that's not factoring in the fact that the safety features will likely be shoddily implemented to cut costs, so a major environmental disaster is a constant danger.

Also one of the issues is that the pipeline will run over sacred ground, which can't be resolved with reducing the risk of spills.

Also using fossil fuels in general is a terrible idea and their use should be minimized as much as possible

 

[Silurian]

The only ones to profit from building a pipeline will be oil corporations. The problem with pipelines is that even with all these new safety features, eventually there will be a spill anyway, and that's not factoring in the fact that the safety features will likely be shoddily implemented to cut costs, so a major environmental disaster is a constant danger.

Also one of the issues is that the pipeline will run over sacred ground, which can't be resolved with reducing the risk of spills.

Also using fossil fuels in general is a terrible idea and their use should be minimized as much as possible

If oil companies make more profit they will have more money to invest or they will pay more dividend to their shareholders.

The government should introduce regulations to force oil companies to upgrade older pipelines with part of the money saved from the new pipelines. Increased dividends will give more money to the shareholders which includes pension etc funds which many people have and more tax will be paid.

Higher risk activities should face greater government regulation and inspection. Aviation is well regulated, there is no reason that other high risk industries should not face similar regulation, inspection and prosecution.

Oil pipelines can be powered by electricity so will produce less pollution from burning fosil fuels.

 

[Lexicus]

If oil companies make more profit they will have more money to invest or they will pay more dividend to their shareholders.

None of us should care about dividends to shareholders. As far as society is concerned dividends to shareholders are pissed down the drain.

It's also false that oil companies (or any companies in fact) need profits to invest. What's needed for business investment is consumption, which comes from increased aggregate demand, which can be had by using public policy to slash profits and redistribute the wealth to wages.

Oil pipelines can be powered by electricity so will produce less pollution from burning fosil fuels.

Except that a majority of the electricity in the US still comes from burning coal and natural gas.

 

[metalhead]

You don't think cheaper energy/petroleum is little to no benefit for the majority of society?

Knocking a couple of bucks a barrel off of the transport costs for a small amount of oil isn't going to affect the market price of the oil. It will purely exist as extra profits for the oil companies.

I mean, sure, I see where some pipelines are necessary for the feasibility of oil production in the U.S. and Canada, it's the continued expansion of single-use, dirty energy infrastructure at the cost of federal land or government mandated easements that I don't care for, and that isn't going to have any impact on the price of oil.

The fact of the matter is that the productions levels and production and transport costs are irrelevant in the global price of oil, because of the cartel that controls enough of the supply to set the prices, no matter how much of our oil we're able to pump out of the ground.

 

[MobBoss]

You did

The only ones to profit from building a pipeline will be oil corporations. The problem with pipelines is that even with all these new safety features, eventually there will be a spill anyway, and that's not factoring in the fact that the safety features will likely be shoddily implemented to cut costs, so a major environmental disaster is a constant danger.

Also one of the issues is that the pipeline will run over sacred ground, which can't be resolved with reducing the risk of spills.

Also using fossil fuels in general is a terrible idea and their use should be minimized as much as possible

I think that's a jaded view. Earlier this year gas prices dropped tremendously. I was even able to buy gas at one point for 1.25 a gallon. Consumer prices dropped as a result of cheaper transportation costs of goods.

And you're still going to say that cheaper oil/petroleum wasn't a benefit to society? I think your anti-corporation emotions are overriding you're ability to see the obvious.

Knocking a couple of bucks a barrel off of the transport costs for a small amount of oil isn't going to affect the market price of the oil. It will purely exist as extra profits for the oil companies.

I mean, sure, I see where some pipelines are necessary for the feasibility of oil production in the U.S. and Canada, it's the continued expansion of single-use, dirty energy infrastructure at the cost of federal land or government mandated easements that I don't care for, and that isn't going to have any impact on the price of oil.

The fact of the matter is that the productions levels and production and transport costs are irrelevant in the global price of oil, because of the cartel that controls enough of the supply to set the prices, no matter how much of our oil we're able to pump out of the ground.

Except when you knock a couple bucks off millions of barrels of oil it does affect the market price. Your gas prices change up or down almost daily merely off the change in the price of oil of only a couple of bucks.

Btw, there really isn't an 'oil cartel' in the world right now as OPEC has devolved into petty in-fighting with members ignoring production ceilings in order to look out for themselves. They might make it back, but the fall in the price of oil from $110 or so down to the mid $20s hurt them where it counts.

And you've still not commented about better pipeline safety features that could great eliminate/mitigate those type of oil spills.

None of us should care about dividends to shareholders. As far as society is concerned dividends to shareholders are pissed down the drain.

Except it's not. Most likely those monies are re-invested by them (growing business), or spent helping to improve local economies.

People that invest don't take their cash and stuff it in the mattress.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that's a jaded view. Earlier this year gas prices dropped tremendously. I was even able to buy gas at one point for 1.25 a gallon. Consumer prices dropped as a result of cheaper transportation costs of goods.

And you're still going to say that cheaper oil/petroleum wasn't a benefit to society? I think your anti-corporation emotions are overriding you're ability to see the obvious.

Keep on ignoring that global warming stuff, pretty sure it just won't happen if you pretend it doesn't exist

 

[MobBoss]

Keep on ignoring that global warming stuff, pretty sure it just won't happen if you pretend it doesn't exist

Oh, boohoo. Fwiw, I've never denied global warming, but I don't have a lot of faith in mankinds ability to actually do anything meaningful to counteract it. We adapt very well, but prevention hasn't ever been one of our strong suits.

But you keep on preaching. In fact, you should go preach in places like China or other countries that do little or totally ignore the issue you're lamenting about. But me? Hey, I recycle and I even installed a energy efficient furnace last winter.

 

[Lexicus]

Well you keep talking about lower gas prices but gas prices have never reflected the true cost of extracting and burning petroleum distillates (ditto for coal and other fossil fuels), so that means that all your talk about pipelines benefiting the consumer is nonsense.

 

[MobBoss]

Well you keep talking about lower gas prices but gas prices have never reflected the true cost of extracting and burning petroleum distillates (ditto for coal and other fossil fuels), so that means that all your talk about pipelines benefiting the consumer is nonsense.

'True cost'? Please. You know the context of my point, and it's accurate. You want refuse to accept my point by going all henny-penny, well, that's just being disingenuous. Besides, I would think any closet environmentalist would appreciate newer tech and better safety features for pipelines....or is the only way to save our planet is by living caveman-style?

Point being, cheaper energy costs do help society as a whole, regardless of the muttering, hand-wringing lament of those that cry about destroying the planet if we embrace cost effective energy.

 

[Silurian]

None of us should care about dividends to shareholders. As far as society is concerned dividends to shareholders are pissed down the drain.

It's also false that oil companies (or any companies in fact) need profits to invest. What's needed for business investment is consumption, which comes from increased aggregate demand, which can be had by using public policy to slash profits and redistribute the wealth to wages.

Unless you are going to have a state run business the owners of the business want a return on their investment. If you owned an oil company ( or wind farm developer) would you invest your money without a return.

If the government was to slash profits and redistribute the wealth to wages there would be a reduction in supply, domestically due to a reduction in new capacity, and an increase in demand. So imports increase and jobs will be lost as plant is not replaced.

I assume that you are never going to retire or intend to live off the small state pension or will have a gold plated government pension being a government employee as you do not acept that pension funds need a return to pay pensions.

Except that a majority of the electricity in the US still comes from burning coal and natural gas.

There is no reason why regulations should not be introduced to require the pumps to be powered by renewable electricity.

 

[metalhead]

Except when you knock a couple bucks off millions of barrels of oil it does affect the market price. Your gas prices change up or down almost daily merely off the change in the price of oil of only a couple of bucks.

Btw, there really isn't an 'oil cartel' in the world right now as OPEC has devolved into petty in-fighting with members ignoring production ceilings in order to look out for themselves. They might make it back, but the fall in the price of oil from $110 or so down to the mid $20s hurt them where it counts.

It really doesn't. The price of oil is set by OPEC, and how much oil they decide to bring to market. They were the ones who decided to flood the market with oil to bring the price down so far, chiefly to hurt the Russian economy but also to harm U.S. exploration. Which they have done successfully.

Oil is a commodity whose price is not related to its production cost. Whether a particular source is tapped is based on whether market forecasts can predict a price that will justify the development. Whether that source costs $40/bbl or $42/bbl is totally irrelevant to the price of oil, while the marginal decrease in development cost is not going to be a decisive factor in whether a particular source is tapped. It's nothing more than a cost savings to the people/company that produce the oil.

And you've still not commented about better pipeline safety features that could great eliminate/mitigate those type of oil spills.

A positive development which should be mandated as upgrades to all existing pipelines. Whether that justifies additional pipelines kind of depends on how upgraded rails might affect safety and throughput, which is well outside the scope of my knowledge on this issue.

Except it's not. Most likely those monies are re-invested by them (growing business), or spent helping to improve local economies.

People that invest don't take their cash and stuff it in the mattress.

Oil development is typically funded by loans and/or bonds. Companies don't get anything back from dividends unless they issue additional shares of stock. Extra profits likewise have no bearing on exploration, it's all about the potential for profit. That is all that guides these decisions. Some companies may invest extra profits in additional charity or community projects, but that is by no means a given.

 

[Lexicus]

'True cost'? Please. You know the context of my point, and it's accurate. You want refuse to accept my point by going all henny-penny, well, that's just being disingenuous.

I'm not being disingenuous - you evidently don't know what you're talking about.

Besides, I would think any closet environmentalist would appreciate newer tech and better safety features for pipelines....or is the only way to save our planet is by living caveman-style?

Unfortunately, it may well be. Time will tell, I suppose.

Point being, cheaper energy costs do help society as a whole, regardless of the muttering, hand-wringing lament of those that cry about destroying the planet if we embrace cost effective energy.

Society is not served when prices do not accurately reflect the true cost of something due to whatever distortions. In the case of oil it is the environmental effects, but prices are also distorted by US government subsidies to the industry and I would argue the prices do not accurately reflect the costs of the US commitment to maintaining an amenable political order in the Middle East, which has led to such things as 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Unless you are going to have a state run business the owners of the business want a return on their investment. If you owned an oil company ( or wind farm developer) would you invest your money without a return.

I never said profits should be abolished, I said they should be shrunk. As I hinted above I could care less about the owners of a business. Owning stuff is not a productive activity. People who derive income solely from their investment positions contribute nothing whatever to society. We'd all be better off if such people were squeezed out by public policy ("euthanasia of the rentier", in Keynes' phrase) and forced to work for a living.

If the government was to slash profits and redistribute the wealth to wages there would be a reduction in supply, domestically due to a reduction in new capacity, and an increase in demand. So imports increase and jobs will be lost as plant is not replaced.

This is straight-out false. Supply-side economics has been tried for decades in the US and has resulted in slower growth and income stagnation. In fact, supply-side economics brought on the financial crisis and in recent years has actually led to income contraction for significant parts of the population.
It is simply not correct that you need profits for investment. The notion that profits are required for investment became obsolete in the 1920s.

I assume that you are never going to retire or intend to live off the small state pension or will have a gold plated government pension being a government employee as you do not acept that pension funds need a return to pay pensions.

This has nothing whatever to do with my point.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not being disingenuous - you evidently don't know what you're talking about.

No..you're being disingenuous.

Society is not served when prices do not accurately reflect the true cost of something due to whatever distortions. In the case of oil it is the environmental effects, but prices are also distorted by US government subsidies to the industry and I would argue the prices do not accurately reflect the costs of the US commitment to maintaining an amenable political order in the Middle East, which has led to such things as 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Whether or not you think the price is 'accurate' is irrelevant. My point was that cheaper energy costs are a benefit to society at large. The points you mention here are actually pretty ambiguous at best to the actual context of the point I was making.

 

[Lexicus]

My point was that cheaper energy costs are a benefit to society at large.

I think you lack a grasp of the issues involved in making that determination. Either that or your definition of 'benefit to society' is narrow enough to be worthless.

 

[Silurian]

I never said profits should be abolished, I said they should be shrunk. As I hinted above I could care less about the owners of a business. Owning stuff is not a productive activity. People who derive income solely from their investment positions contribute nothing whatever to society. We'd all be better off if such people were squeezed out by public policy ("euthanasia of the rentier", in Keynes' phrase) and forced to work for a living.



This is straight-out false. Supply-side economics has been tried for decades in the US and has resulted in slower growth and income stagnation. In fact, supply-side economics brought on the financial crisis and in recent years has actually led to income contraction for significant parts of the population.
It is simply not correct that you need profits for investment. The notion that profits are required for investment became obsolete in the 1920s.

You stated

using public policy to slash profits

Owning stuff would not be a productive activity if you do not get a return on your investment. If as you wish such people were squeezed out the governmeent would have to supply the money to invest.

As I asked before, If you owned an oil company ( or wind farm developer) would you invest your money without a return.

This has nothing whatever to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your point. If you have a gold plated government pension and do not realise that other people have pensions that invest in the stockmarket and so need the divideneds to fund their old age if they do not want to live in poverty.