AuburnGrad
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 8
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Does that mean we should build this pipeline? A pipeline that is in danger? A pipeline that is going to create very few fulltime US jobs? A pipeline for in the long term will not benefit this country?
Personally, at this point, I hope President Obama vetoes the bill and the Senate is unable to come up with the 67 votes to override it. Many Canadians, if not most, at this point would prefer we keep the production and transportation in country to both the west coast, for transport to Asia and to the east coast, for transport to Europe. If the powers that be don't want to be good business partners with Canada and its rich natural resources, we can find friends and partners elsewhere. The US has benefited greatly from decades of undervalued oilsands product and it's time Canadians benefited from the full market value of their resource. And we'll have long memories too.
So tear up all those railroad tracks and the existing 186,000 miles of pipeline, and if you like we can take back the right of way for the Alaskan oil that runs through Canada.
If your so opposed that is......
What I do not understand is the fact we have at present 186,000 miles of liquid oil pipelines in the United States already. What the heck is another 2-3,000 miles gonna hurt when you already have 75 times or something close to that here already. I agree, it is much more dangerous to ship oil via truck and train than through a pipeline.
Another thing, if we can somehow become energy independent with Canada's help, why not. It would reduce the chance of us getting into a war over a oil shipping lane or trying to protect a middle eastern country oil producing capability from whomever. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit and oil accounts for over half of that. We are helping other countries economy and giving them jobs when that money could be spent here along with the jobs. Then too, for every new job that means one less person on unemployment or what have you and that means less spending. It also means that taxes will be collected from the those jobs created and that increases revenues.
Think about it. What is one of the primary goals of the enviro-nuts? To get rid of the gasoline/diesel internal combustion engines and to end the use of fossil fuels. Because they are not smart enough to actually invest into research and create viable alternatives, they instead attack in what ever way they think people will believe. They invest heavily into propaganda (such as what Demsocialist keeps posting), political activism and in many cases enviro-terrorism.
To oppress instead of create has long been a hallmark of the left. It surprises you that they use it in their "fight" against fossil fuels?
Not really, what surprised me when I looked it up was that even the majority of Democrats are for the pipeline by a 49-38 margin. Except for that one group within the Democratic Party it seems the rest are for it to include the unions.
Keystone XL Pipeline Divides Democrats | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
1) Americans aren't getting the oil. So it's not like it's going to lower our energy costs.
2) American's are taking all the risk by shipping it over their lands. There's a reason Canadians have already passed on this...
3) Very few permanent jobs after all the construction is done. So...
American's get what benefit from this? Not many Americans, fortunately Republicans have their useful idiot followers who can always be relied upon to shortchange other Americans. I'd be fine with this too if I knew for certain that once there's an oil spill national resources would not be used in the cleanup. But you know many of these state's rights hypocrites will be crying for federal aid once a disaster happens.
Hurrah! Congress finally gets something positive done. Great for Canada, good for the US and a wash for the environment.
Btw, for the uninformed, the pipeline itself will be carrying nothing different than all the other existing pipelines. The tar sands are still processed where they are already processed and have been for years.
Top 10 facts about Alberta's Oil SandsFACT #1: The Alberta oil sands have a huge carbon footprint. To illustrate, a Honda Accord burning tar sands gasoline has the same climate impact as a Chevy Suburban using conventional gasoline.1
FACT #2: The Alberta oil sands produce lakes of toxic sludge. A 2013 report concluded that an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River. Also, according to documents from the Canadian government, the tailings ponds are leaking into and contaminating Alberta groundwater.
FACT #3: In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.
The owner of the toxic tailings lake, a tar sands company Syncrude, was fined $3 million in 2010 for the duck deaths. According to the CBC, “Syncrude lawyer Jack Marshall told the court that the company apologizes for the incident and recognizes it must do much better when it comes to protecting wildlife.”
FACT #4: The Alberta tar sands are holding Canada back on climate change action. Canada would be on track to reduce climate pollution over the next decade if not for the planned expansion of the tar sands industry. Instead Canadian emissions are predicted to increase.4
FACT #5: The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 176 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
FACT #6: Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.
FACT #7: The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
FACT #8: Fully exploiting the tar sands could release more climate pollution than the USA and China combined – or EU plus China combined – have released in all their history. It could surpass all the oil ever burned by humanity.8
FACT #9: Emissions from the Alberta Oil Sands have increased some 267 percent between 1990 and 2011, according to Environment Canada, although per-barrel emissions have gone down a reported 26 percent. The overall increase of Canada’s expanding tar sands extraction, however, has the nation’s total emissions set to increase steadily over the next several decades.
FACT #10: Climate pollution from producing tar sands oil is projected to hit 104 MtCO2 by 2020. That is twice current emissions from Norway or Bangladesh – and exceeds the combined emissions from 85 nations.10
Well said and supported by this Canadian and just about everyone I know....
We are building condensing plans for Liquified Natural gas in the far north in Prince Rupert for export to China, plans are already under way to build a pipeline from Fort McMurray through the worst of the Rockies to the Rupe...negating the entire need for Keystone. Harper's Conservatives are on board, as are BC's Liberals and Alberta's ever Conservative government..all that remains in the traditional ay off to First Nations and we're a go....extraction, primary cleansing, refining and shipment all in country and Canadian jobs..
Yeah, I would rather this turkey die a quick death we will be better off.
The Chinese will **** though
Actually, we will also be using the pipeline for some of our own oil. As it passes through several states that are either new fields of production or ones that have seen the refineries close to which they previously had pipelines, that oil will be able to be shipped from the fields to the refineries much more affordably.
If someone thinks this pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen, they apparently are not aware of how much oil is currently being shipped by rail and trucks which is far more likely to have spills.
Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Labor and Environmentalist in the same party has always been rather strange, since Environmentalism has costs this country more jobs than just about anything. Environmentalism is the one faction on the left that has not always been there. Sure, they don't fit on the right, but they really don't fit on the left either. Perhaps, as the green party grows, we will see a change in the Dems as the enviro-nuts migrate over. Not that I would piss on either if I saw them on fire. Environmentalism, like fascism, doesn't really fit the spectrum but is generally a bad thing.
You don't honestly think the Chinese are going to do anything to limit greenhouse gasses do you? Communists don't care about the environment. They care about power. If they address emissions in China it will be to placate the masses, not because they buy into some global warming nonsense. Communists will agree to anything. Then go right out and ignore the agreement.My advice is shut the whole tars sands project down. Its' too expensive in too many ways. Now that the Chinese have signed on to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions, you won't be able to unload it on them. Tar sands **** will need 3 times the carbon credits as regular crude. It will become too dirty to use...cut your losses and put that land back into something tolerable that won't give us all cancer.. I'm surprised we can't smell it here in Florida. The entire project is an environmental nightmare whose time is long past.
You don't honestly think the Chinese are going to do anything to limit greenhouse gasses do you? Communists don't care about the environment. They care about power. If they address emissions in China it will be to placate the masses, not because they buy into some global warming nonsense. Communists will agree to anything. Then go right out and ignore the agreement.
Its oil. Someone will want it. If not everyone.Well at least if they buy that tar sands crap we will know they are bluffing. I doubt they will though. It will become a pariah that no one wants.
You are right we will be using that pipeline to export more oil and raise prices for us. Sure sounds like it is worth the risks. After all it will employ 50 whole Americans when completed in 2 years.
Read more @: Senate nears 60 on Keystone
Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
You mean like the exportation of Shale oil has recently caused such a drastic rise in gas prices over the last month? Maybe where you live, but gas prices here are over $.50 lower. Of course, Obama and his henchmen are now fighting against the deflationary affects of lowering oil prices.
And no, it will not all be exported. It will be pumped into the refineries in the Houston area. Perhaps that which is shipped from Canada will be exported, but then again, it was never really imported.
Its oil. Someone will want it. If not everyone.
We are practically swimming in oil now. We need to put that tar sand crap back for a generation or 2 at least. Maybe then we will know how to use it efficiently.
The oil is being extracted and sold now. It's presence on the market is one reason there is so much. The only question is whether we in the US will share in the wealth. We do that by building the Keystone XL in order to become the primary refiner of the Canadian crude.
Poppycock. Tar sands crude is not even economically viable with oil below $100. Not to mention being the primary recipient of the carcinogenic air pollution from that refining and be the one taking all the risk of contaminating our aquifers from pipeline leaks. The only thing we won't get is gasoline, jobs or money from it. They are even going to use Russian Steel to build it. It sounds just perfect doesn't it? I can't believe that Obama will veto it, but he certainly will.
It's actually profitable at any price above $65/barrel. The refinery that will process the crude already exists. Pipelines are the safest, cleanest means of transport, and since we already have about 185,000 miles of pipelines in the US, 2,000-3,000 more won't add any appreciable risk. A large share (perhaps most) of the refined product will be marketed in the US.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?