Keystone Pipeline

[Rukentuts]

Sorry, but I am not sure what you are referring to with "Why?" since your statement seems to be in agreement with what you quoted. Are you asking why we should build it when it gets refined and sold anyway? If so, then we should so that the profit from that refinement and sale can be derived in this country instead of another.

Because it's being sold under a guise of self-sufficiency, which is far from the truth.

I'm also sick of fossil fuels. They're an archaic source of dirty energy and nothing more (except in many places an added expense on the economy).

[Felya]

I'm also sick of fossil fuels. They're an archaic source of dirty energy and nothing more (except in many places an added expense on the economy).

It's interesting that the solution to oil being too expensive is not to find an alternative, but find ways to reinforce our dependance on oil. We beat China if they get this oil and continue on with a quagmire of being dependant on a finite resource, while we build and produce the alternative. The way we win the fight over energy, is by advancing technology, not finding new ways to further intrench us in fighting over a finite resource.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Because it's being sold under a guise of self-sufficiency, which is far from the truth.

I'm also sick of fossil fuels. They're an archaic source of dirty energy and nothing more (except in many places an added expense on the economy).

So we shouldn't take a course of actions whose only ultimate result is profit for our nation (since the gas is getting used anyway) because you don't like how it being talked about? I think not.

As for being sick of fossil fuels, unless you can either convince the nation to go full nuclear (which really isn’t a viable power course for things like cars unless we want to build rails into all the roads to transmit the electricity and even that presents issues) or invent a power source that can adequately replace fossil fuel, then you need to get over it. There is no suitable alternative to fossil fuel at this time and harming everyone by suppressing the only viable power source (and profits that can be derived from it when it is going to be used by another nation anyway) presently available accomplishes nothing but the previously mentioned harm to everyone.

It's interesting that the solution to oil being too expensive is not to find an alternative, but find ways to reinforce our dependance on oil. We beat China if they get this oil and continue on with a quagmire of being dependant on a finite resource, while we build and produce the alternative. The way we win the fight over energy, is by advancing technology, not finding new ways to further intrench us in fighting over a finite resource.

So by that logic, should we follow the energy plan President Obama had in mind before he got to the White House? The one that would cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" to try and spur technological advance that already has billions of dollars thrown at it as it is?

[Rukentuts]

It's interesting that the solution to oil being too expensive is not to find an alternative, but find ways to reinforce our dependance on oil. We beat China if they get this oil and continue on with a quagmire of being dependant on a finite resource, while we build and produce the alternative. The way we win the fight over energy, is by advancing technology, not finding new ways to further intrench us in fighting over a finite resource.

Batteries need to advance more before they because viable in the market. Because consumers don't often see that while they'd pay more for their vehicle, the economic expenses of emissions for example would be absent.

In addition as long as we rely on coal plants, electric vehicles are kinda moot.

- - - Updated - - -

So we shouldn't take a course of actions whose only ultimate result is profit for our nation (since the gas is getting used anyway) because you don't like how it being talked about? I think not.

As for being sick of fossil fuels, unless you can either convince the nation to go full nuclear (which really isn’t a viable power course for things like cars unless we want to build rails into all the roads to transmit the electricity and even that presents issues) or invent a power source that can adequately replace fossil fuel, then you need to get over it. There is no suitable alternative to fossil fuel at this time and harming everyone by suppressing the only viable power source (and profits that can be derived from it when it is going to be used by another nation anyway) presently available accomplishes nothing but the previously mentioned harm to everyone.

Yes, but we could transition to use natural gas instead of oil, for starters, and be self sufficient overnight. While not perfect, natural gas is significantly less dirty than oil.

We can call it a baby-step in the right direction.

[Daelak]

So we shouldn't take a course of actions whose only ultimate result is profit for our nation (since the gas is getting used anyway) because you don't like how it being talked about? I think not.

As for being sick of fossil fuels, unless you can either convince the nation to go full nuclear (which really isn’t a viable power course for things like cars unless we want to build rails into all the roads to transmit the electricity and even that presents issues) or invent a power source that can adequately replace fossil fuel, then you need to get over it. There is no suitable alternative to fossil fuel at this time and harming everyone by suppressing the only viable power source (and profits that can be derived from it when it is going to be used by another nation anyway) presently available accomplishes nothing but the previously mentioned harm to everyone.


So by that logic, should we follow the energy plan President Obama had in mind before he got to the White House? The one that would cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" to try and spur technological advance that already has billions of dollars thrown at it as it is?

The Canadian companies are under no obligation to sell the oil to the US. In reality, if the pipeline was to be installed, all the oil would be shipped to Europe, where oil prices are at their highest.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The Canadian companies are under no obligation to sell the oil to the US. In reality, if the pipeline was to be installed, all the oil would be shipped to Europe, where oil prices are at their highest.

And then profit would still be derived from the transport of the oil through America. That justification still stands.

Yes, but we could transition to use natural gas instead of oil, for starters, and be self sufficient overnight. While not perfect, natural gas is significantly less dirty than oil.

We could just transfer over to allowing more domestic oil production with the condition that the newly drilled domestic oil not be refined, sold, or transported outside of the borders of America as well as pass a tariff on domestically drilled oil (not something that would apply to the oil shipped through the Keystone pipeline, not saying it would).

Do that, and then if it is cheaper to drill the oil here than ship it in, it will be drilled here and we would be independent within a decade of setting up the oil wells and other structures required to extract the oil. This would also have the added benefit for people like you since you believe in a great scarcity of oil (not a belief I share nor a belief that historical trends of oil discovery or projected likely reserves support) as exacerbating that domestic scarcity would increase the need and support for the alternative source of energy you desire.

[Rukentuts]

We could just transfer over to allowing more domestic oil production with the condition that the newly drilled domestic oil not be refined, sold, or transported outside of the borders of America as well as pass a tariff on domestically drilled oil (not something that would apply to the oil shipped through the Keystone pipeline, not saying it would).

Do that, and then if it is cheaper to drill the oil here than ship it in, it will be drilled here and we would be independent within a decade of setting up the oil wells and other structures required to extract the oil. This would also have the added benefit for people like you since you believe in a great scarcity of oil (not a belief I share nor a belief that historical trends of oil discovery and exploitation support) as exacerbating that domestic scarcity would increase the need for the alternative source of energy you desire.

The bolded would never in a million years pass the House. And I believe the "conditions" of drilled oil could only be applied to public lands, and even then might still require a law as it interferes in business.

It's basically a far progressive stance (that I still support) but would never happen with our political situation.

And the USA doesn't have a shitload of oil, but we have a shitload of natural gas. This is why I made a point in calling that transition to it out as an interim goal.

[Daelak]

And then profit would still be derived from the transport of the oil through America. That justification still stands.


We could just transfer over to allowing more domestic oil production with the condition that the newly drilled domestic oil not be refined, sold, or transported outside of the borders of America as well as pass a tariff on domestically drilled oil (not something that would apply to the oil shipped through the Keystone pipeline, not saying it would).

Do that, and then if it is cheaper to drill the oil here than ship it in, it will be drilled here and we would be independent within a decade of setting up the oil wells and other structures required to extract the oil. This would also have the added benefit for people like you since you believe in a great scarcity of oil (not a belief I share nor a belief that historical trends of oil discovery or projected likely reserves support) as exacerbating that domestic scarcity would increase the need and support for the alternative source of energy you desire.

And you think the profits derived from shipping oil through the continental US is more than the potential for an oil spill?

Even from a cost/benefit standpoint, it is a loser, just due to the amount past oil spills have cost the federal/state/local governments as well as the oil companies themselves.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The bolded would never in a million years pass the House. And I believe the "conditions" of drilled oil could only be applied to public lands, and even then might still require a law as it interferes in business.

It's basically a far progressive stance (that I still support) but would never happen with our political situation.

And the USA doesn't have a shitload of oil, but we have a shitload of natural gas. This is why I made a point in calling that transition to it out as an interim goal.

Is that natural gas as or more economically viable for vehicles and other things that use gasoline than is gasoline? If not, by what margin?

And you think the profits derived from shipping oil through the continental US is more than the potential for an oil spill?

Even from a cost/benefit standpoint, it is a loser, just due to the amount past oil spills have cost the federal/state/local governments as well as the oil companies themselves.

If the financial responsibility for cleaning up an oil spill is placed on the oil company, then I'll let them make that decision of economic viability. Additionally, just how damaging do you think above ground or below ground (don't bring up oil spills at sea as this pipeline does not travel over large bodies of water) oil spills really are?

[Payday]

People need to understand that crude bitumen is nowhere near the same as crude oil.

There was a bitumen pipeline burst 3 yrs ago right down the street from where I grew up. It's still a major shit show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

Largest on-land oil spill in US history. Straight from the Athabasca Oil Sands, same bit that Keystone would be pumping to us.

Oil floats on top of the water so you can skim it off. Bitumen sinks.

[Rukentuts]

Is that natural gas as or more economically viable for vehicles and other things that use gasoline than is gasoline? If not, by what margin?

Would be cheaper, burns "cleaner", and the USA has a large bit of it.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Would be cheaper, burns "cleaner", and the USA has a large bit of it.

Then what would you say is preventing its exploitation?

[Rukentuts]

Then what would you say is preventing its exploitation?

Transitioning current infrastructure to accommodate natural gas instead of oil.

[The Riddler]

I think that "climate change" as an issue is entirely oriented around the political goal of transferring money to governments.

I think that environmentalism has convinced a lot of well-meaning (but foolish) dupes that they can "make a difference" by giving money to nameless, faceless governments and that will somehow magically accomplish something.

I think that the scientific community at large has been corrupted and politicized by what can only be called payola to cook their data so as to slant it in favor of saying human CO2's effects are far more exaggerated than they really are.

I think AGW advocates cherry pick definitions so as to imply that any change in the climate "proves" their alarmist claims.

I think Environmentalists oppose ANY human development and growth no matter what it is. Wind. Solar. Nuclear. Thermo. Hydro. Fossil. Bio. Environmentalist oppose them all and will do anything and everything they can to litigate/sabotage such projects out of existence if they can.

The Keystone Pipeline could be transporting magical rainbow and Unicorn power that was 100% clean and environmentalists would still oppose it.

[Hyve]

Pipelines are almost always better for the environment. While their construction may be costly to the physical environment around them, conservation projects and local environmental support could easily subsidise that.

What they do cut out are large fleets of Boats, Trucks & Vans to transport and maintain the transportation network. Oil is fundamental to our species, and while I hope we soon find better and more reliable sources of energy, we need Oil now.

[Uvwaex]

And increase expense far in excess of the value of spilling less of a negligible amount I would imagine.

As long as TransCanada or whoever is held liable to and pays the actual costs of whatever damage they (will at some point) might cause, I'm ok with them building it, assuming that human lives are not immediately in danger from whatever spill happens. Of course, if you look at BP and the Gulf, which I'm not totally up to date on, it doesn't look like those types of companies usually actually DO pay the actual cost of damage.

[Rukentuts]

I think that "climate change" as an issue is entirely oriented around the political goal of transferring money to governments.

I think that environmentalism has convinced a lot of well-meaning (but foolish) dupes that they can "make a difference" by giving money to nameless, faceless governments and that will somehow magically accomplish something.

I think that the scientific community at large has been corrupted and politicized by what can only be called payola to cook their data so as to slant it in favor of saying human CO2's effects are far more exaggerated than they really are.

I think AGW advocates cherry pick definitions so as to imply that any change in the climate "proves" their alarmist claims.

I think Environmentalists oppose ANY human development and growth no matter what it is. Wind. Solar. Nuclear. Thermo. Hydro. Fossil. Bio. Environmentalist oppose them all and will do anything and everything they can to litigate/sabotage such projects out of existence if they can.

The Keystone Pipeline could be transporting magical rainbow and Unicorn power that was 100% clean and environmentalists would still oppose it.

I glad you started every phrase with "I think", as the facts are in direct contradiction with your opinions and far-fetched conspiracy theories.

[Uvwaex]

I think that environmentalism has convinced a lot of well-meaning (but foolish) dupes that they can "make a difference" by giving money to nameless, faceless governments and that will somehow magically accomplish something.

What modern organizations aren't "nameless, faceless"?

[Rukentuts]

What modern organizations aren't "nameless, faceless"?

Shhhh. NASA and NOAA are too busy cooking their data for a Muslim Kenyan.

[Masark]

Then what would you say is preventing its exploitation?

The existing userbase of petroleum equipment and the attendant inertia.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as TransCanada or whoever is held liable to and pays the actual costs of whatever damage they (will at some point) might cause, I'm ok with them building it, assuming that human lives are not immediately in danger from whatever spill happens

And when the big disaster happens, they just go "lolbankruptcy" and bugger off with their money leaving a lovely superfund site for you to pick up the tab on.