Keystone Pipeline

[kochman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rd-to-accept/2012/01/18/gIQAf9UG9P_story.html

Obama has denied the Keystone Pipeline (a pipeline from Canada into the US, aimed to bring oil to US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico).
The Canadian company building it will re-apply, but if Obama is still in, it will get denied again.

In the meanwhile, the Canadian PM has said, no problem, we'll re-route and sell it to China.

Also in the meanwhile, we will continue to have more oil shipped via tanker from the Middle East to those same refineries of ours.

Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Earlier this week, Obama's jobs committee recommended approving exactly such a thing as this pipeline...
And, here we are, basically stagnant economy...

Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

How does this make you react?
If you agree with Obama, why?
If you don't, why not?

 

[Veles]

How did he elaborate his decission?

 

[Murky]

How does it make you react? It was the right thing to do.
If you agree with Obama, why? The Pipeline is a detriment to the environment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How did he elaborate his decission?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...20120118?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said in a statement.

By the way, what does this mean?

But lawmakers that support the project attached a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision.

 

[Murky]

Anyone that goes beyond knee-jerk reaction will see that the risks outweighed the benefits. The job numbers were overstated by it's proponents. The people who wanted it completely ignored the damage it would have done to the environment. The Tar Sands is environmental destruction on an epic scale.

 

[bhsup]

Didn't we get enough of the Manchurian Presidency from Bubba? Now we have another one purposely aiding the PRC against American interests. Great... Just how many Democratic Presidents are going to have to sell us out to the PRC before people realize we cannot trust the Presidency to this party?

 

[Murky]

Didn't we get enough of the Manchurian Presidency from Bubba? Now we have another one purposely aiding the PRC against American interests. Great... Just how many Democratic Presidents are going to have to sell us out to the PRC before people realize we cannot trust the Presidency to this party?

Huh? What does the Keystone XL have to do with China?

 

[bhsup]

Didn't read the OP?

In the meanwhile, the Canadian PM has said, no problem, we'll re-route and sell it to China.

Obama had to have known that would come. Knowing that, he actively chooses to aid the PRC to the detriment of American interests.

 

[downtown]

Because China gets the oil if we don't.

My understanding was that the promised pipeline route ran through environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska. There seem to be conflicting reports as to whether it would cause damage or not.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Huh? What does the Keystone XL have to do with China?

See, the world is a game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

If our president doesn't direct us into franticly eating every piece we can, he's a traitor and a shame to his party, the country, and PT Barnum.

 

[Murky]

How does this help anything?

 

[Synobun]

How does it make you react? It was the right thing to do.
If you agree with Obama, why? The Pipeline is a detriment to the environment.

While I agree that the oil sands and oil in general should be avoided and alternatives sought, you have to be realistic and look at the economy and the power standings on this planet. A pipeline from Canada to America would reduce a lot of strain on America for both oil demand from the middle east and some jobs. With Obama saying no, all we'll do now is just ship our oil to China, who are more than willing to throw money at us.

If the American government were seriously pursuing an alternative to oil necessity, I would agree that denying the pipeline was a good idea, but they're not. America is heavily reliant on oil, and having an oil source close to home is better than having an oil source across the ocean and in the hands of radicals and fanatics.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

How doe this help anything?

Please don't show such risque images of progress. This is a family site.

 

[Murky]

Please don't show such risque images of progress. This is a family site.

I forgot to link to the story where the image is from.

The term “tar sands” refers to thick oil called bitumen that is mixed in with sand, clay, and water. Intensive energy is required to process the sands into crude oil. Tar Sands oil is the world’s most harmful type of oil for the atmosphere, emitting high volumes of greenhouse gases during development, which contribute to global warming, as well as other pollutants. Tar Sands projects are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions growth in Canada. By 2015, the Tar Sands are expected to emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million)
http://www.borealbirds.org/tarsands.shtml

 

[Veles]

Can't they just build a refinery at the Canadian border, somewhere in Washington?

 

[kochman]

How does this help anything?

It helps us by allowing us to use the following...

Every single thing that needs fuel.

That was already done, by Canada, in Canada... their choice.

The oil is out there... we could buy it, refine it, and sell it...
Or, let China do it... while we continue to get our supply from S Arabia, etc...

How does this help?

The same way, it is a by product of getting the fuel we need.

Which technique do you prefer? Since there really is no alternative...

 

[kochman]

If the American government were seriously pursuing an alternative to oil necessity, I would agree that denying the pipeline was a good idea, but they're not. America is heavily reliant on oil, and having an oil source close to home is better than having an oil source across the ocean and in the hands of radicals and fanatics.

EXACTLY.
We need oil until we have something else to replace it... when that alternative comes, I'm all for it.

Can't they just build a refinery at the Canadian border, somewhere in Washington?

If only it were as easy as that sounds!
Good luck getting approved for a new refinery... in WA, or anywhere... it takes decades, tons of money, with no guarantee of success.
USA #1

 

[Murky]

EXACTLY.
We need oil until we have something else to replace it... when that alternative comes, I'm all for it.

We could switch to electric or plug-in hybrid cars. Decommission coal plants and replace them with solar and wind power. We have the technology to do that now. We just need to scale it up for the masses. There are also more gains to be made on energy efficiency.

The major road block is getting people to give up their "Black Gold" as a source of income. The Big Oil companies posted the largest profits in the energy sector. Of course they want to keep that money flowing in, no matter how much harm it does to the environment in the process.

 

[Veles]

If only it were as easy as that sounds!
Good luck getting approved for a new refinery... in WA, or anywhere... it takes decades, tons of money, with no guarantee of success.
USA #1

Still makes more sense than constructing the pipeline through all country from the lakes to the gulf. Will it not require the approval on municipal level of every territory the pipe goes through? That's mad. Just build a refinery on Pacific coast close to Canada or Alaska. If anything, we could build a pipe line below the Bering strait and connect it to yours, so you'll have diversified source and we have them moneyz.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I am glad Obama did something useful for once. The USA doesn't need more oil, its oil consumption per capita is twice that of the western European countries. It is time to invest in the future and not dying technologies.