Keystone Pipeline

[downtown]

I think it's mostly a political move. Obama's trying to drum up support from the environmental camp in the run up to the election. That's why it's not completely off the table, but just shelved for review at a later date.

I think thats exactly what this is. Postponing the pipeline is a major concern for environmental activists, and Obama needs their support to knock doors and make phone calls. If he wins releection, he'll prob support building the pipeline, since fewer people will care then.

 

[Murky]

Ok, let's break this down for you...
1) The decision to process the oil has already been made, therefore, the subsequent damage is already going to happen NO MATTER if we choose to take the pipeline or not...
2) The Chinese, who are MUCH less concerned with the environment, are happy to use the oil, in the dirtiest manner of their choosing.
3) The "reality of global warming" is a theory. It could very well be true... but the US not getting this oil doesn't prevent this damage, which at this point, is written in stone... just a matter of who will benefit.

It's like saying, I won't eat that deer because that is mean... the deer is already dead, someone else is going to eat it, and you are starving as a result. Shooting yourself, and our nation, in the foot.

Could you be a little more condescending? I'm not great on subtly.

You argument is basically: Canada has already destroyed its land mining the tar sands so to not take advantage of it would be silly. If we don't someone else will.

That is absurd. The more we buy of it the more they mine it. Building Keystone XL would have basically been saying, "Destroy your land and externalize the damage to the inhabitants of Canada, we don't care just give is our cheap gasoline please." You eat their Deer meat they'll just go poach another.

 

[NickyJ]

That is absurd. The more we buy of it the more they mine it. Building Keystone XL would have basically been saying, "Destroy your land and externalize the damage to the inhabitants of Canada, we don't care just give is our cheap gasoline please."

And China repeating the exact same words makes it so much better?

Look, the damage is done. No matter who gets the oil, it's done. So why not try to make the best of it? We need the jobs, we need to get away from the ME. Surely China taking advantage of it isn't going to repair the damage?

 

[bombshoo]

Wasn't the pipeline to sell to overseas markets anyways? That's why it's going to the Gulf isn't it? If they just wanted to bring it to the U.S., would they need to go through that specific area?

As for jobs, it seems it would create a decent amount of construction jobs (so they would temporary) but it would also seem actually running an oil pipeline basically amounts to only a few people. I'm not sure how good of a comparison it is, but I just looked it up and the Alaska Pipeline only employs 811 people.

 

[Cutlass]

And China repeating the exact same words makes it so much better?

Look, the damage is done. No matter who gets the oil, it's done. So why not try to make the best of it? We need the jobs, we need to get away from the ME. Surely China taking advantage of it isn't going to repair the damage?

This will not help us get away from the Mideast, and the number of jobs will never offset the destruction of property it would take to get it.

 

[kochman]

1) Look at the long run. Does this lower our dependence on the Mideast? No. It stretches out their profits. we'd be better off in the long run buying from them now and saving ours for later.
2) A trivial handful of jobs for huge environmental destruction? That's not a cost?
3) It won't reduce the money going to the Mideast in the long run.
4) That ain't gonna happen either. This project is a drop in the bucket.

In short, all the selling points of this project are being blown way out of proportion to any realistic benefit we might receive.

This is a special interest giveaway project, not the national interest.

1) Nonsense... as you said, it all goes into one global pool. Who gets the jobs for it doesn't. The ME is going to continue to sell their oil regardless of where we get ours, because it will be purchased by someone.
2) What huge environmental destruction? The State's 3 year study indicated little environmental damage... this is a fact.
3) It will reduce our money going there, and subsequentally, our interference... you didn't do anything but strawman what I said.
4) The typical response from the far left... if it doesn't cure a problem all by itself, it isn't the answer. Eventually, all those drops in buckets fill buckets. If we can cut our national interest in even one ME country, as a result, that is a net positive.

Could you be a little more condescending? I'm not great on subtly.

You argument is basically: Canada has already destroyed its land mining the tar sands so to not take advantage of it would be silly. If we don't someone else will.

That is absurd. The more we buy of it the more they mine it. Building Keystone XL would have basically been saying, "Destroy your land and externalize the damage to the inhabitants of Canada, we don't care just give is our cheap gasoline please." You eat their Deer meat they'll just go poach another.

Again, the deer are getting shot one way or another... people need to eat.
The oil is being producted one way or another (US or someone else)... people need it.
You denying we need it doesn't make others not use it.

Wasn't the pipeline to sell to overseas markets anyways? That's why it's going to the Gulf isn't it. If they just wanted to bring it to the U.S. they need not go through that specific area.

As for jobs, it seems it would a decent amount of construction jobs (so they would temporary). Actually running an oil pipeline basically amounts to only a few people.

To me whether or not China gets the oil is meaningless...
Who gets the jobs and profits is meaningful.

 

[NickyJ]

This will not help us get away from the Mideast, and the number of jobs will never offset the destruction of property it would take to get it.

It would help us get away from the ME because we wouldn't be relying on them as much, and I highly doubt that China taking those jobs would be better for offsetting the destruction.

 

[Cutlass]

1) Nonsense... as you said, it all goes into one global pool. Who gets the jobs for it doesn't. The ME is going to continue to sell their oil regardless of where we get ours, because it will be purchased by someone.
2) What huge environmental destruction? The State's 3 year study indicated little environmental damage... this is a fact.
3) It will reduce our money going there, and subsequentally, our interference... you didn't do anything but strawman what I said.
4) The typical response from the far left... if it doesn't cure a problem all by itself, it isn't the answer. Eventually, all those drops in buckets fill buckets. If we can cut our national interest in even one ME country, as a result, that is a net positive.

What jobs? A couple of temp jobs only. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

You are placing at very great risk fragile ecosystems from the north border of the US to the Gulf, and there is no way that the owners are going to pay for what they destroy.

It will not reduce our money going to the Mideast, not in the long run. 40 years down the line the amount of American money in Mideastern hands will not be lower because of this pipeline.

40 years down the line we will not be less dependent on the Mideast because of this project.

If your goal was to reduce long term dependence on the Mideast, you would oppose this project and fight for reduced oil consumption.

 

[kochman]

What jobs? A couple of temp jobs only. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

You are placing at very great risk fragile ecosystems from the north border of the US to the Gulf, and there is no way that the owners are going to pay for what they destroy.

It will not reduce our money going to the Mideast, not in the long run. 40 years down the line the amount of American money in Mideastern hands will not be lower because of this pipeline.

40 years down the line we will not be less dependent on the Mideast because of this project.

If your goal was to reduce long term dependence on the Mideast, you would oppose this project and fight for reduced oil consumption.

Man... it is odd how you ignore your own talking points when they don't work for whatever agenda.
How many times have you talked about gubbamint stimulus should be used for temporary jobs such as infrastructure improvement. These jobs would last a lot longer than that! And at NO cost to the US gubbamint, but rather, increased revenue in favor of the US gubbamint.

Why did the State not consider it very great risk? Do you have some data that their scientists don't?

It won't decrease money to the ME, but it will decrease US money. China will gobble up their reserves, and the ME's internal conflicts can be China's problem to interfere with, instead of ours.

I totally support reduced oil consumption, and do whatever I can to conserve energy. However, that's all I can do... I can't make cars run on solar power or whatever... I support alternate energy, and I've said this so many times it's like a broken record.
But I live in reality...

 

[Murky]

1)
Again, the deer are getting shot one way or another... people need to eat.
The oil is being producted one way or another (US or someone else)... people need it.
You denying we need it doesn't make others not use it.

The difference is that the Keystone XL pipeline would bring environmental destruction from Canada to the US. Oil pipelines leak. Do we need to risk more oil spills to satisfy some sick need for cheap gasoline? Do you turn in poachers to the authorities or invite them to hunt on your land?

To me whether or not China gets the oil is meaningless...
Who gets the jobs and profits is meaningful.

There's plenty more jobs and profits to had with renewable energy jobs. Keystone would have only benefited a few industries over the long term and do so much damage in external costs as to offset any of the short term benefits.

 

[kochman]

The difference is that the Keystone XL pipeline would bring environmental destruction from Canada to the US. Oil pipelines leak. Do we need to risk more oil spills to satisfy some sick need for cheap gasoline? Do you turn in poachers to the authorities or invite them to hunt on your land?

If that poacher is starving, I don't turn him in. The US needs the oil...
China and whoever are going to poach there if we don't.

There's plenty more jobs and profits to had with renewable energy jobs. Keystone would have only benefited a few industries over the long term and do so much damage in external costs as to offset any of the short term benefits.

Again, when it works, I'm all for it... I don't know anyone who isn't, so why do you keep repeating this argument as though it is in contention?

 

[Murky]

If that poacher is starving, I don't turn him in. The US needs the oil...
China and whoever are going to poach there if we don't.

But America isn't starving, at least not yet. Estimates are that with new efficiency standards for cars and trucks we won't be needing as much oil. We certainly don't need to stoop to taking part in the most devastating environmental destruction thus far just to make sure our gas prices stay low.

Again, when it works, I'm all for it... I don't know anyone who isn't, so why do you keep repeating this argument as though it is in contention?

We have alternative energy technology that works now. Why not support more of those projects and less fossil fuel related projects? You can create just as many if not more jobs installing wind farms and solar panels.

 

[kochman]

But America isn't starving, at least not yet. Estimates are that with new efficiency standards for cars and trucks we won't be needing as much oil. We certainly don't need to stoop to taking part in the most devastating environmental destruction thus far just to make sure our gas prices stay low.

This will not lower our gas prices, this isn't what it is about. I can't keep repeating myself and expect a different understanding... so I won't.

We have alternative energy technology that works now. Why not support more of those projects and less fossil fuel related projects? You can create just as many if not more jobs installing wind farms and solar panels.

As I've said... I'm all for that. Let's see the people who can make it happen, make it happen.
The W Post is a liberal paper, and even they said the same... denying this pipeline would be a great idea IF we were taking steps in the other direction... but we aren't, so it isn't.

 

[GamezRule]

Personally I see it is not really that big of a deal. Sure, it's more jobs right now, but in reality, our oil supply meets demand.

 

[History_Buff]

China and whoever are going to poach there if we don't.

I just want to jump in here on this point. As someone who lives in Alberta, we've been talking about Keystone XL vs. Northern Gateway for weeks straight now. The things you should know are:

1) Keystone XL will almost certainly be approved eventually.

Once it detours around certain areas of Nebraska (where the concerns are both environmental, and because Trans-Canada had been treating the landowners incredibly poorly), Obama will almost have to approve it.

He really isn't allowed not to; even this rejection was done because the timeline restriction imposed by Republicans prevents an environmental impact study due to time shortage, rather than the actual merits of the proposal.

I can't say I support it, but it'll happen eventually.


2) Northern Gateway is not going to happen.

They've been trying to build it since the mid-2000s, and it keeps getting delayed.

The first reason is that the line would have to pass through a huge area of native lands in northern BC, and those claims are by no means settled. This means that under Canadian law, just about every BC band can lodge a complaint against the pipeline. Nearly every group is resolutely opposed to the pipeline. Good luck settling that mess.

The second reason is that nobody in western Canada (outside of the oil companies) wants to see large oil tankers sailing around off the Haida Gwaii (aka. the Queen Charlotte Islands). The waters are incredibly treacherous, and there's been an unofficial moratorium on tanker traffic there since the 70's. The memory of the Exxon Valdez is very strong there.

The third reason is that Enbridge is perceived as being bad at building pipelines. I can't speak about that in a professional sense, but they've had a number of major pipeline failures in the last two years.



And if anyone wants to see how likely pipeline failures are, check out this handy list.

 

[emzie]

I think thats exactly what this is. Postponing the pipeline is a major concern for environmental activists, and Obama needs their support to knock doors and make phone calls. If he wins releection, he'll prob support building the pipeline, since fewer people will care then.

Good observation.

If America approves the pipeline or not, Alberta is going to continue with the tar sands.

Why do you nee twice as much oil as a German. Live like a swiss person and you could export huge amounts of oil.

That's why.

 

[Murky]

This will not lower our gas prices, this isn't what it is about. I can't keep repeating myself and expect a different understanding... so I won't.

You seem to think this this decision will impact the amount of oil we import from Canada. It won't, they will just find another means of transport. By and large, the public believes that more oil on the market equals lower gas prices. Which is false because there is increased demand from developing nations.

As I've said... I'm all for that. Let's see the people who can make it happen, make it happen.
The W Post is a liberal paper, and even they said the same... denying this pipeline would be a great idea IF we were taking steps in the other direction... but we aren't, so it isn't.

I read the Washington post article. It basically says the issue is overblown on all fronts. It would not have that big of an effect on jobs, gas prices, global warming, etc.

The importance of the decision is more symbolic. It says that America no longer just gives Big Oil a free pass to do whatever it likes. That's the take away. That is what really matters. For once we put the environment before big oil and they don't like it.

 

[Riffraff]

That's why.

That is certainly part of the explanation, but by no means exhaustive and if I were to take a guess less relevant than cultural differences (consumerism still a bit less deveopled in europe).

 

[emzie]

That is certainly part of the explanation, but by no means exhaustive and if I were to take a guess less relevant than cultural differences (consumerism still a bit less deveopled in europe).

Consumerism is absolutely a major part of it. You don't see a lot of V8 pick up trucks in Paris.

But a significant amount of oil consumption in the US (and Canada, which has higher per capita consumption) is due to transportation and climate.

To visit my mom, I would have to drive or fly the distance of Stockholm to Lisbon. But it's not just personal travel. Trucking things around uses a lot of diesel. And while much of that is consumerism, even at European levels of consumption, it'd still be quite expensive.

There's also hold overs like oil power plants and heating oil (my in laws place is heated by oil) that up that number as well.

 

[GoodGame]

How does this make you react? ...e to alternatives to foreign oil procurement.