Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline (washingtonpost.com) 369
An anonymous reader writes: The Keystone XL pipeline controversy is finally coming to a close. On Friday, President Obama denied a construction permit for the pipeline, ending a seven-year political fight. Obama said, "America's now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that's the biggest risk we face — not acting." Secretary of State John Kerry added, "The reality is that this decision could not be made solely on the numbers — jobs that would be created, dirty fuel that would be transported here, or carbon pollution that would ultimately be unleashed. The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves." The decision comes as no surprise to the oil industry, and they've been busily working on other ways to transport the oil. "U.S. imports of oil from Canada hit a record high of 3.4 million barrels a day in August, up from just under 2 million barrels a day in 2008, the year the pipeline was proposed."
fighting carbon pollution? (Score:2, Insightful)
So now the oil will be transported by truck and rail, which of course pollutes much, much less than sending it through a pipe via electric pumps.
is obama and his administration fucking retarded? did he flunk basic math and science?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No this was basically a big F-U to Canada and the BC Pipeline to sell oil to China.
Re: (Score:3)
"No this was basically a big F-U to Canada"
We would rather buy our imported oil from countries that hate us. And where else are they going to get the revenue for international terrorist operations?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pipeline seems to have been one great big scam from the start. With the fossil fuel era coming to an end, a mad scheme developed to pump up tar sands, claim huge value with a government subsidised pipeline and then dump that tar sands upon the pension funds of a gullible public only to see it all collapse as it is forced to compete with other countries desperately trying to dump as much fossil fuel as quickly as possible before it all gets banned. Large fossil fuel capital investment, you should seriou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Warren Buffet is probably doing a happy dance, though. Guess those campaign contributions really paid off!
Re: fighting carbon pollution? (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely billionaire campaign contributor Tom Steyer is happy. The liberals keep talking about the Koch brothers ruining politics, but it's Stryker and George Soros who are the real threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Buffett runs the trains and has a share in the oil.
This hurts him not at all. Do you think that the oil *isn't* going to be brought up because of the failure of the pipeline?
I don't know if Keystone was good or bad for the US in general, but the only thing that's a real threat to the oil sands exploitation is low priced Saudi oil. It's still profitable to truck and ship that oil because it is oil and everyone needs it.
I think there is some sort of odd belief that the oil has been "stopped". You can't stop oil production without a better alternative. If anyone thought this was a "win" for alternative fuels, they are mistaken. The only people who may have benefited are the people who don't lose their land and who could, in theory, have to deal with the aquifer if there was a spill. You don't stop oil production by trying to stop transport of oil already drilled. Too many people need it and will ensure it gets where it needs to go.
Frankly, I think it would have been a marginal win for the environmentalists to let the pipeline go in. Trucks and trains are a definite pollution and carbon issue, whereas a spill is a theoretical risk while the oil would have been transported without the waste of the trucks and trains. I think this is NIMBY "environmentalism" at work.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian, I hate the idea of exporting our raw resources any which way and hopefully this will lead to doing some refining here and then piping the refined product elsewhere. More inefficient means of transport such as trains puts more pressure on the oil companies to be efficient. I also hate the fact that we're dependent on other countries to supply our fuel. America is bad enough with their strategic refinery shutdowns but depending on China and shipping raw product across the Pacific and refined pr
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Koch bros must be mighty pissed off right about now.
Maybe it'll pop your bubble, but they're probably delighted, given that they have big investments in the rail transport system that's profiting hugely from transporting oil. As someone once said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Re: (Score:3)
The Koch bros must be mighty pissed off right about now.
Maybe it'll pop your bubble, but they're probably delighted, given that they have big investments in the rail transport system that's profiting hugely from transporting oil. As someone once said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Which is both true and interesting, since, despite having investments which profit from not building the pipeline, the Koch brothers did lobby for it being built. This is not the first example of where the Koch brothers lobbied against their "interests". They have, overall, followed an investment strategy where they will profit if the U.S. government follows what they claim to believe is best for the country, without being so foolish as to follow an investment strategy where they will be hurt by their prefe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There were to be almost no jobs after the pipeline was built. What do you expect all the workers to do? All you need is like three guys every hundred miles or so. One to watch the gauges, and two to investigate leaks. You then have a crew of ten every 500 miles to repair leaks. Probably be a total of 100 American jobs, and that is if they don't bring down Canadians to do the job anyways.
WHAT FUCKING JOBS ARE YOU YAMMERING ON ABOUT. Fucking idiot. And of course they wanted to lay this pipeline right a
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges (http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/04/how-a-decaying-infrastructure-hurts-u-s-manufacturing/).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Informative)
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges
Since "the money" would have come from the oil industry, there is 0% chance of it being spent on repairing bridges. More likely, it will be spent on pipelines to carry Canadian oil to the Pacific coast, so it can be shipped to China.
This is a victory for political symbolism over reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges (http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/04/how-a-decaying-infrastructure-hurts-u-s-manufacturing/).
There is no "general fund" which includes both bridge repairs and pipelines. All the government was needed to do here was to approve the construction. It wasn't paying a cent for construction.
If there is no pipeline, there are zero pipeline jobs, and since the money for the pipeline comes 100% from the oil companies, the workers aren't "reassigned" to bridge work. They get to be unemployed.
You know how you get the most jobs? Approve both the pipeline and also ensure your representatives approve infrastr
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oil will be used, THAT very expensive and polluting to extract oil will likely not be as long as the oil prices stay below what it costs to develop the tar sands.
And jobs aren't *that* important. There are MANY things I'd rather not do despite what ever jobs they might create. Like restart slavery, or have government funded turd polishers, etc. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The Keystone XL pipeline was bad for America (except for the many GOP Congresspeople who were investors in TransCanada) in EVERY way except for the bullshit 'jobs' excuse, which was a weak excuse to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
"maybe Obama was born outside the United States [wikimedia.org] after all! "
No, that's a baseless conspiracy theory. He just behaves that way.
Re: (Score:2)
USA is not a jus sanguinis country. Please don't speak of what you know nothing about, moron
Actually it is in most cases, check out the law Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 3 Part 1 Section 1401 Paragraph G https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Your a citizen at birth if your either born in the USA, both parents were American citizens at your birth and one had lived in the USA or its outlying possessions at some point before you were born, or if only one of your parents was an American citizen at your birth and prior to your birth they lived in the USA or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years and
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about reality, it's about perception. It doesn't matter which pollutes more only which is perceived to be worse.
Re: fighting carbon pollution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. And all that noise about how unsafe the pipeline is will be exposed as so much bullshit when (not if) a derailment causes a raging fire, many deaths and the evacuation of any towns near the conflagration.
BTW oil shipped east by rail within Canada has already caused deaths.
Rational thought is something reviled by the "Green" movement. It's all really about more government control.
If things really were so dire we'd be shutting down the coal plants as the new nuclear plants come online, but that's not w
Re: (Score:2)
Except that pipeline spills happen all the time in north america like weekly. The risk of fire is much lower but the environmental cost to land owners is still very high. Not saying it's worse. But pipelines are not definitely not safer. There was a major spill just a few of years ago in the Midwest that is still not cleaned up despite the oil company claiming recovery is complete. A real disaster. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]. With the TransCanada pipeline the odds of a spill or multiple spills of t
Re: (Score:3)
Just a note that the oil that was shipped east and caused deaths at Lac-Megantic was US Oil from the Bakken formation not from the Oil Sands in Alberta.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid name. Keystone. Like the cops. Shuda called it Patriot Pipe.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And what happens when that pipeline breaks and makes the water undrinkable and the farmland unusable? Canada and the oil companies made sure they would be exempt from liability so my taxes would go to foot the bill for clean up. Keep it in your backyard, not mine, if you want to drink your oil. You are the fucking retard here.
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:4, Informative)
You're confused, if a pipeline breaks they turn the pumps off and fix it. Crude oil, being 100% natural, gets broken down by bacteria that eat it. We already have huge, huge volume of oil and petroleum products going through massive pipe system, look it up.
Re: (Score:3)
In Prince William Sound, decades later, you can still turn over rocks and find crude oil from the Exxon Valdez. Bacteria break down your 100% natural oil great in the lab; not so much in the wild.
Pro tip: never base your argument in how "natural" something is that is 100% toxic to nearly everything in nature. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
look at a map of the lines we already have, we run pipes by the great lakes and through states that have water table near the surface. we've had leaks already, this is just same thing
Re: (Score:3)
And the equivalent of 10 keystones have been built in the US since the Keystone was applied for in 2010.
The net effect of saying no was therefore slightly less than a 10% reduction in build and the equivalent increase in rail.
The net benefits will 100% accrue to the rail companies. The increased transportation costs will be borne by oil producers. There will be no reduction in oil output from oil sands.
http://business.financialpost.... [financialpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying "if a terrorist got a nuclear weapon, there would be a horrible catastrophe."
Yes, of course there would, but what is the actual risk assessment of that happening as opposed to, for instance, dying in a mundane car accident?
How many pipeline catastrophes are there on a regular basis, and would all of them put together release more pollutants into the air and water supply than simply running trucks and trains with the same amount of oil less efficiently?
Less efficiency is more waste, and th
Re: (Score:3)
What happens when the train derails?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article... [ap.org]
You act like if the pipeline isn't built we'll just quit using oil.
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's like the Republicans thinking they can end Obamacare and Social Security by making it hard to operate them. Obstructionism doesn't work, it just makes you look like an asshole.
Alternative fuels need to become more economical based on their own merits, NOT bullshit blockages of economical fuels. Going down that path is only going increase the number of enemies of alternative fuels because people see it for the obstructionism that it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the technology required to build an oil refinery beyond the societal abilities of Canada? Do they really need to freeride off the USA even more than they already do?
Is it too much to ask that TransCanada build a Canadian pipeline transversing Canada to their own Canadian refinery, thereby securing all the supposed economic benefits for their own country?
Fuck Canada!
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Blame about 3 Prime Ministers back who decided Canada will no longer build refineries in Canada and rely on sending our oil south.
With the lower cost of oil now it is pretty much approaching too expensive to suck it out of the oilsands in Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
beyond the societal abilities of Canada
*Sigh*. Another tired argument from someone who doesn't know anything about the industry.
This is driven by economics and the free market, I have no idea what brain twisting you've done to see this as a "societal" thing. Argue if you want that we should make poor economic decisions and build refineries, but at least be aware of what you're arguing for.
I'll give a simple example to illustrate. Imagine you can take a barrel of oil out of the ground, and sell it raw for $50. Or, you can refine the bar
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Informative)
You're all wrong and kind of stupid while you're at it.
This pipeline was going to a specific place for a specific reason, and that reason was not to benefit the American people. It is illegal to export US crude oil overseas. It is not illegal to export Canadian crude though. Additionally, Canada doesn't have a lot of the kinds of refineries that can handle that garbage tar sand stuff they dig up because that requires a level of environmental unfriendliness uncommon even for refineries. Of course the US deep south has those because God's will or something.
This pipeline was to terminate in one of those "foreign free trade zones" where companies don't pay taxes on exports. The entire purpose of it was to allow a Canadian company to export crude and/or products refined from that crude overseas through the US, with US citizens bearing the brunt of the environmental cost of dealing with the pipeline and taking the environmental risk processing what even for crude oil is a very dirty raw material. It would not have lowered gas prices in the US because the oil would not have stayed in the US. This was all about using ignorant people to fund a for-profit project essentially for free when all was said and done.
The only thing Obama screwed up is that he let it go on this long. Actually, forget about the environmental issues because nobody's ever going to convince some of you that it's ever a problem. Anybody responsibly running a country would have laughed this out of his office the day it came in there simply on economic terms. What kind of person in charge of anything would deliberately take on a bunch of risk for no reward? Cleanups cost money and something like this is pretty much guaranteed to need one at some point. Nobody who has any brains in business would take that on--of course that's exactly what business wanted the US government to do in this case. However, Obama had to pander to the ignorant masses, and unfortunately the facts of this story take longer to relay than the attention span of a toddler, which is what most Americans and especially most conservatives have these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:4, Informative)
You're all wrong and kind of stupid while you're at it.
Yes, you are, we're about to see why in a second...
This pipeline was to terminate in one of those "foreign free trade zones" where companies don't pay taxes on exports.
Neither the US nor Canada tax exports. At all. The reason for the use of the foreign free trade zone is to REDUCE costs to the US Government, saving it money. The law says that if I import goods from a foreign country (say, oil) I pay an import tax on it. When I use that good to create a new good/product and export the resuts, I can claim back the import taxes I paid on the original imported goods. Meaning the US Government must inspect, assess, and then collect payment. And then must process a claim for tax return, process, and pay back out.
By using a foreign free trade zone, product is not taxed when it arrives - and it must be exported abroad. The net tax result is zero - same as in the original case. But CBP doesn't have to process each transaction twice - eliminating the expense/overhead related to a zero-gain transaction.
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Oil doesn't have to stay in the US for it to lower the price of oil in the US.
If China wants the oil and can't get it from Canada, it will get it from other places that it can get it from, including some places that we source our oil from. That will drive up the oil prices everywhere.
The US has an advantage with local oil reserves, but even the US still imports 27% of its petroleum and that number is the lowest it has been in recent memory. Changes to US oil production could very easily increase that perc
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who benefits most from the pipeline? TransCanada. All the pipeline does is make is easier and cheaper to ship oil from the tar sands. There will be some jobs to build the pipeline but after that only a handful to maintain it. The problem is the US will spends billions to build it. Will it increase refinery capacity? No. Will it make it easier to extract oil from the tar sands? No. Do US refineries benefit from getting more oil? No as most of the oil will be simply shipped out of the Gulf of Mexico to Europe. So the only purpose of the pipeline was so that TransCanada saves money on shipping at the expense of the US.
Then there is the possible environmental problems. Pipelines leak. If there is an incident with a train or truck, the impact is much less than a pipeline spilling millions of gallons of oil somewhere in the US when it is used.
Then there is the economic aspect of extracting oil from the tar sands. At the current gas prices, it's not economical to get oil from the tar sands. So when gas prices are low, the pipeline won't even be used. So the US is paying for a half-used pipeline.
So the US pays a lot of money so that TransCanada saves money on shipping. When it is in use, there is a greater chance of environmental impact. When it is not being used, the US paid a lot of money so TransCanada didn't save money. There was no real economic advantage to it at all.
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The US is paying for a pipeline that a Canadian company is installing? How does that work?
Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
What on earth gave you the idea US taxpayer money was being used to build this pipeline, and not TC's capital? Wow, guess I haven't read the craziest of the anti-KXL propaganda...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
*Snickers* Really? After that first line doozy?
Here's some basic math and science for you, transporting the oil pollutes a negligible amount compared to extracting it. The Keystone XL pipeline was designed to reduce the cost of developing the tar sands. Tar sands are expensive to develop because they are energy intensive and very polluting to extract oil from. By keeping the cost of developing the tar sands high, it rai
Re: (Score:3)
He's a lame duck who is limited by term limits, I don't see his job being at risk from voters at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
...if by "voters" you mean "George Soros, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett, and their fellow travelers." (You should especially look into Buffett on this one. This is a great outcome for the railroads that he owns.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean voters, the people who actually choose who to vote for. There is no one else to blame. And if you are going to scapegoat people, make sure to include the Koch Bros, and all the other little dynasties you can think of in that specific bunch.
Thanks (Score:2)
for the oil trains.
After transcanada pulls the plug (Score:5, Informative)
Obama denys the permit a few days after transcanada requests to table the permit process (due to falling oil prices) and everyone cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's because Obama is the most passive, reactionary, wait-and-see, wishy-washy, retroactive, pansy leader the US has had in my lifetime (and perhaps ever).
Re: (Score:2)
Obama denys the permit a few days after transcanada requests to table the permit process (due to falling oil prices) and everyone cheers.
It also helps that Justin Trudeau just became the Canadian PM. While he supported Keystone that support was a lot softer than that of Harper, the previous PM. I don't think Harper would have much political influence in the US but it's always nice to avoid an extra source of criticism.
Moreover the cancellation is a big political gift to Trudeau. The Liberals are centrists so putting them in an ongoing support/deny mode was going to alienate a big chunk of their supporters. Cancelling this early absolves him
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero chance.
More knowledgeable people than you have looked at the problem and disagree. Thus you would be wise to at least look at their arguments. As for OPEC.......OPEC is not as powerful or as united as they once were. Furthermore, SA has said that with green technologies and electric cars, they don't expect the price of oil to stay high for long, and they plan to drill as much out of the ground as fast as they can while they can still sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Economic calculations (Score:5, Interesting)
It's notable that Obama is making a political calculation (wanting to retain "leadership" relating to climate change, the pipeline not increasing "energy security") rather than an economic or environmental one.
Reading his statement [whitehouse.gov] on the matter, his economic justifications are irrelevant ("the pipeline wouldn't create jobs or lower gas prices for Americans"): since it's not proposed that the US government pay for the pipeline, these issues are only relevant against costs -- and he doesn't discuss any costs! He isn't citing the direct environmental damage of digging the pipeline and creating associated infrastructure (roads, power cables, pumping stations etc). He isn't citing the risk of leaks.
I was wondering if Obama would claim climate risks since that would have required him to quantify his estimate of the accuracy of the models used to predict the climate effects of the pipeline. But naturally he didn't claim risks to the climate -- only risks to US leadership on climate issues. That's a fair reason to make national-level decisions, but is not a win for the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate change requires coordinated action from all (or most) major countries. If the US went ahead with Keystone, then politicians or bureaucrats in other countries would say, why should we stick out our necks on this. The USA isn't making any sacrifices and they're the worst (or in top 2) polluter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your argument assumes disapproving Keystone XL has both negative climate effect and positive economic benefits, so that disapproving it would have been a "sacrifice". In fact, Obama is arguing that it w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading his statement [whitehouse.gov] on the matter, his economic justifications are irrelevant ("the pipeline wouldn't create jobs or lower gas prices for Americans"): since it's not proposed that the US government pay for the pipeline, these issues are only relevant against costs -- and he doesn't discuss any costs! He isn't citing the direct environmental damage of digging the pipeline and creating associated infrastructure (roads, power cables, pumping stations etc). He isn't citing the risk of leaks.
I was wondering if Obama would claim climate risks since that would have required him to quantify his estimate of the accuracy of the models used to predict the climate effects of the pipeline. But naturally he didn't claim risks to the climate -- only risks to US leadership on climate issues. That's a fair reason to make national-level decisions, but is not a win for the environment.
Well the economic justifications are relevant is they fail to justify the costs, as to the costs you just listed a bunch, including the extra CO2 contributing to climate change and damage to US leadership that he focused on. Obama's claim is that the economic benefit is mild and not enough to cover the environmental and political problems.
The risk of leaks and environment damage from construction are relevant, but they're not the justification for the cancellation. (possibly because they're cancelled out by
Until 2017 (Score:2)
It will probably be approved in the summer of 2017.
The summary (Score:2)
The Keystone XL pipeline controversy is finally coming to a close.
Hahhahahahahaha, good one!
Think of it as cleaning up Nature's Oil Spill (Score:5, Funny)
Nature already polluted all of this sand with oil. All the oil companies are doing is removing the oil leaving nice clean sand behind.
It's the Price of Oil. (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They requested a delay with the hope that a possible republican administration will pick it up in 2017.
Nice move (Score:2)
So they will continue to send 5000 trucks a day, nice move.
Yeah, other ways (Score:3, Informative)
"The decision comes as no surprise to the oil industry, and they've been busily working on other ways to transport the oil."
Like, for instance, the railroad that Obama's 1%'er buddy Warren Buffett owns. I'm sure there's no connection there, though.
Oh, and is it cleaner to transport by rail?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article... [ap.org]
Nope.
And is it going to cut carbon emissions? Are we pretending that Canada's just going to leave it in the ground if we don't buy it?
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt Canada will leave it in the ground forever. But with current oil prices, it may make sense to leave it in the ground for a few more years.
But there's something I've never quite gotten about the controversy. My understanding is that the oil that would be pumped through Keystone XL was contractually promised to China, and would not be available to the US anyway. It would just be pumped across the US to our ports on the Gulf of Mexico for shipping. And we would not get any of it or the benefit from
Re: (Score:3)
"The decision comes as no surprise to the oil industry, and they've been busily working on other ways to transport the oil."
Like, for instance, the railroad that Obama's 1%'er buddy Warren Buffett owns. I'm sure there's no connection there, though.
I'm also sure there's no connection.
I mean the basis of your conspiracy is the fact that a famous rich donor (who's relatively friendly with the administration) has some of his billions stashed in railways, and those railways will see some mild to moderate increase in business due to the cancellation.
The evidence against your conspiracy, besides the fact that that's a remarkably weak motive for a massive political decision, is the fact that Warren Buffet is on record supporting the pipeline
Buffett said that [fortune.com]
Two stories referencing Canada in a row? (Score:2)
And it hasn't even been one week since the election. Well, I for one welcome our new Canadian overlords.
But on a more serious note, we all know the real reason why this pipeline was rejected. And its name is Berkshire Hathaway [fool.com].
I was in favor (Score:3)
"The only winner is Venezuela"
I wanted Keystone XL approved just to fuck with Maduro.
Political cynicism at its finest (Score:2)
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the ROI on other investments of our money would be much better, and pose less liability. I would rather we put 42000 construction jobs rebuilding our infrastructure.
We're the only country that build up to a first world infrastructure and then decided it was better to let it decay.
Citation? (Score:3)
Re:Political bullshit that has nothing to do with (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the keystone pipeline would raise the cost of oil and lessen the supply to the industries you quote right?
What the lobbyists who produce this information and fancy commercials and radio talk shows don't tell you is where this oil is going?
It is not going to you. It is going to cars in China who are used to paying $9 a gallon for gas. If all of North America's gas could be sold for %300 why would they sell it to you, or fertilizer, plastic, electrical, or medical companies? Unless you want to pay $7 a gallon for gas of course.
This is why Obama vetoed it. We have all the liability of a potential accident with less product.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the keystone pipeline would raise the cost of oil and lessen the supply to the industries you quote right?
You do realize that oil is a global commodity and there are literally hundreds of sources for it around the world, and that one country buying from Canada will not affect the prices for other countries unilaterally?
It is going to cars in China who are used to paying $9 a gallon for gas.
You are an idiot. Gas in China is about $4/gallon [globalpetrolprices.com]. It's about the same price it's been for the last few years.
This is why Obama vetoed it. We have all the liability of a potential accident with less product.
President Obama vetoed it probably as a sop to the extreme environmental lobby, which overwhelmingly supports the Democrats. With the 2016 elections coming up, no President wants to s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the concerns that a for profit, foreign company was proposing to use eminent domain to acquire the pipeline right-of-way? I don't think that got the press it deserved and was not a precedent we wanted to set as a country.
Re: (Score:2)
And we import about 1/4. IOW, if we can cut our oil based vehicles in half, we will not import a single drop of oil
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Political bullshit that has nothing to do with (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the prices of oil in America are actually QUITE low. If you compare brent (roughly international) with WTI (west texas with better grade oil compared to brent), you will find that WTI is 10/brl LESS. Why less? Because our costs are pretty darn low as well as our supply is greater than our demand.
Now, if America quits importing oil, then you can bet that global prices will plummet even further. And with average nighttime electricity prices in America at
And If America is moving quickly to much lower costs electricity and nat gas on our vehicles, china will go ballistic and work hard to drop their imports of oil.
IOW, by focusing on our burning of oil, rather than one location of where it comes from, the dems COULD have caused the world wide drop of CO2 over the next 5 years. This is why dems are SOOO foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
You can stop with the high drama. This is business, and nothing but. Simple short term cost/benefit ratios are all that is considered. They didn't like the numbers, so they pulled the plug.
Same with the anti-nuke crowds (Score:4, Insightful)
The just flat our refuse all evidence, even with the worst case scenarios accidents at Chernobyl and Fukashima, the millions of lives saved by using nuclear power. And this is with the handicap their efforts have wrought by preventing the adoption of new designs and technology to the point where we are planning on running reactors until they are 80 years old. Imagine if we were on 6th or 7th generation reactors? Imagine if we were allowed to use breeder reactors? Nobody would be talking about using fossil fuels for electricity production.
Re: (Score:2)
The just flat our refuse all evidence, even with the worst case scenarios accidents at Chernobyl and Fukashima, the millions of lives saved by using nuclear power. And this is with the handicap their efforts have wrought by preventing the adoption of new designs and technology to the point where we are planning on running reactors until they are 80 years old. Imagine if we were on 6th or 7th generation reactors? Imagine if we were allowed to use breeder reactors? Nobody would be talking about using fossil fuels for electricity production.
I'd like to see a real-world test of the feasibility of a thorium reactor. It produces electricity and completely eliminates any concern about weapons-grade fissile material.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a real-world test of the feasibility of a thorium reactor. It produces electricity and completely eliminates any concern about weapons-grade fissile material.
There are several ongoing projects [wikipedia.org].
Re:Political bullshit that has nothing to do with (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The medical industry too would cease to exist as we know it today.
If only.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm hesitant to reply to a troll, but here goes.
> we'd STILL need about 50% of existing demand just to continue the rest of our lives like we do now.
I'm curious where you got this figure from. Let me check your rectum.
> No modern electronics at all. No plastics. No fertilizers on a global scale. Far fewer pesticides, none that actually work. The medical industry too would cease to exist as we know it today.
Nonsense. We already know how to synthetically produce petroleum-like substances. These things
You don't want to eliminate CO2 emissions. (Score:2)
Well I mean you don't want to stop CO2 emissions. If you let it go too low all life dies. In fact the industrial revolution probably saved the planet from mass extinction. The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm but the lowest it was during a recent glaciation at 180 ppm. It looks like with the Earth cooling volcanic activity is decreasing which releases less CO2. Crop plants start dying at around 150 ppm and really thrive at 2000 ppm which is why greenhouses use CO2 generators because the plants will use up t
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that we do not teach logic in our schools. Had we done so, it might have made up for your total lack of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that we do not teach logic in our schools.
If they did that, politics would have to actually make sense. There's far too much invested in never allowing that to happen.
I'd recommend The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi. It's an introductory book about logic and critical thinking, written (for educational purposes) from the point of view of someone trying to intentionally deceive an audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow - watch fox news much?