First off, our reliance on oil when we have so much Thorium is stupid. Second, Obama is a piece of shit for not approving this. He knows full well that our relationship with Canada is essential for the future of this country.
I did contract work there last year and when I entered the country they stapled an official document to my passport saying I had to GTFO 48hours after my task was complete. They do have jobs, and unlike America, they are not intent on destroying their middle class by outsourcing them.
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
The risks of that pipeline are pretty high, given the relatively limited benefits, and the people put at most risk, in Nebraska, have protested the pipeline.
And I'm not sure how this is going to do major harm to the bilateral relationship. Diversification seems like a good thing for Canada, not really a problem for us (we can get oil elsewhere, no? and diversification with increased production still means increased supplies of oil. it's not as if they're planning on withholding oil from us), and even more, it's probably a good thing to diversify Asian oil imports, if we wish to leverage them in the future on Iran or similar issues (and also, if we want to cushion the blow to the global economy from any Middle East energy disruptions).
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
First off, our reliance on oil when we have so much Thorium is stupid. Second, Obama is a piece of shit for not approving this. He knows full well that our relationship with Canada is essential for the future of this country.
He's probably just deffering the process so he doesn't have to make a decision in an election year.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
dkfan9 wrote:
The risks of that pipeline are pretty high, given the relatively limited benefits, and the people put at most risk, in Nebraska, have protested the pipeline.
And I'm not sure how this is going to do major harm to the bilateral relationship. Diversification seems like a good thing for Canada, not really a problem for us (we can get oil elsewhere, no? and diversification with increased production still means increased supplies of oil. it's not as if they're planning on withholding oil from us), and even more, it's probably a good thing to diversify Asian oil imports, if we wish to leverage them in the future on Iran or similar issues (and also, if we want to cushion the blow to the global economy from any Middle East energy disruptions).
not to mention, the pipeline's oil has likely already been sold to China anyway.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
The risks of that pipeline are pretty high, given the relatively limited benefits, and the people put at most risk, in Nebraska, have protested the pipeline.
And I'm not sure how this is going to do major harm to the bilateral relationship. Diversification seems like a good thing for Canada, not really a problem for us (we can get oil elsewhere, no? and diversification with increased production still means increased supplies of oil. it's not as if they're planning on withholding oil from us), and even more, it's probably a good thing to diversify Asian oil imports, if we wish to leverage them in the future on Iran or similar issues (and also, if we want to cushion the blow to the global economy from any Middle East energy disruptions).
not to mention, the pipeline's oil has likely already been sold to China anyway.
still would have to move it from the area to the pacific. Cheapest, Safest most reliable method...... pipeline.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Electromatic wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
The risks of that pipeline are pretty high, given the relatively limited benefits, and the people put at most risk, in Nebraska, have protested the pipeline.
And I'm not sure how this is going to do major harm to the bilateral relationship. Diversification seems like a good thing for Canada, not really a problem for us (we can get oil elsewhere, no? and diversification with increased production still means increased supplies of oil. it's not as if they're planning on withholding oil from us), and even more, it's probably a good thing to diversify Asian oil imports, if we wish to leverage them in the future on Iran or similar issues (and also, if we want to cushion the blow to the global economy from any Middle East energy disruptions).
not to mention, the pipeline's oil has likely already been sold to China anyway.
still would have to move it from the area to the pacific. Cheapest, Safest most reliable method...... pipeline.
here's a zany idea:
also, you are aware that there is already a pipeline and this is just a bigger one?
TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that 'the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector'.[3] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[4] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[5]
On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[6] However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[7] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[8] The pipeline became operational in June 2010.[9]
What is the Keystone XL? The Canadian energy company TransCanada has asked for permission to build a 1,661-mile pipeline that would travel from Hardisty, Alberta, down to oil refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. It would supplement the existing Keystone pipeline, which went into operation last summer and can carry up to 435,000 barrels of oil per day. The pipeline would carry tar sands oil, which is heavier, more carbon-intensive, and more corrosive than conventional oil. It is scheduled for completion in 2013, though it would not hit capacity until 2056.
What's wrong with building a giant pipeline across the US? That existing Keystone line has already leaked a dozen times in just one year of operation. The Keystone XL would cross more than 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. The oil spill from another pipeline in the Yellowstone River last month didn't do much to allay those concerns. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides nearly one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million people. A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska's sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.
The much-higher carbon footprint of tar sands oil and its contribution to climate change are also concerns, as are the health problems reported near extraction sites.
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
thanks for posting that. i was too tired to craft that part of the sentence, for some reason. i mean i know why i'm tired, just not sure why i couldn't formulate the risks without excessive effort.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
dkfan9 wrote:
thanks for posting that. i was too tired to craft that part of the sentence, for some reason. i mean i know why i'm tired, just not sure why i couldn't formulate the risks without excessive effort.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Why do I get the feeling that the 'carbon footprint' aspect (or just involving fossil fuels at all) is a bigger sticking point than this overblown safety issue? I'm pretty sure the worst case spill from this pipeline would pale in comparison to say, the Exxon Valdez.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
simple schoolboy wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the 'carbon footprint' aspect (or just involving fossil fuels at all) is a bigger sticking point than this overblown safety issue? I'm pretty sure the worst case spill from this pipeline would pale in comparison to say, the Exxon Valdez.
The risks of that pipeline are pretty high, given the relatively limited benefits, and the people put at most risk, in Nebraska, have protested the pipeline.
And I'm not sure how this is going to do major harm to the bilateral relationship. Diversification seems like a good thing for Canada, not really a problem for us (we can get oil elsewhere, no? and diversification with increased production still means increased supplies of oil. it's not as if they're planning on withholding oil from us), and even more, it's probably a good thing to diversify Asian oil imports, if we wish to leverage them in the future on Iran or similar issues (and also, if we want to cushion the blow to the global economy from any Middle East energy disruptions).
not to mention, the pipeline's oil has likely already been sold to China anyway.
still would have to move it from the area to the pacific. Cheapest, Safest most reliable method...... pipeline.
here's a zany idea:
also, you are aware that there is already a pipeline and this is just a bigger one?
TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that 'the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector'.[3] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[4] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[5]
On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[6] However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[7] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[8] The pipeline became operational in June 2010.[9]
What is the Keystone XL? The Canadian energy company TransCanada has asked for permission to build a 1,661-mile pipeline that would travel from Hardisty, Alberta, down to oil refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. It would supplement the existing Keystone pipeline, which went into operation last summer and can carry up to 435,000 barrels of oil per day. The pipeline would carry tar sands oil, which is heavier, more carbon-intensive, and more corrosive than conventional oil. It is scheduled for completion in 2013, though it would not hit capacity until 2056.
What's wrong with building a giant pipeline across the US? That existing Keystone line has already leaked a dozen times in just one year of operation. The Keystone XL would cross more than 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. The oil spill from another pipeline in the Yellowstone River last month didn't do much to allay those concerns. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides nearly one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million people. A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska's sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.
The much-higher carbon footprint of tar sands oil and its contribution to climate change are also concerns, as are the health problems reported near extraction sites.
I'd like to see a study of safety, carbon footprint ona per barrel basis of shipping oil to refineries by pipleine versus by truck.
Do users think any additional carbon footprint in extracting and refining the oil is offset by not buying oil from OPEC countries?
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
tyler wrote:
I'd like to see a study of safety, carbon footprint on a per barrel basis of shipping oil to refineries by pipeline versus by truck.
Do users think any additional carbon footprint in extracting and refining the oil is offset by not buying oil from OPEC countries?
in all honesty, that's the least of my worries.
this is a huge expanse of land (and aquifer) that could be devastated by even a small spill. from my reading of the topic, the pipeline is neither necessary nor directly advantageous.
I'd like to see a study of safety, carbon footprint on a per barrel basis of shipping oil to refineries by pipeline versus by truck.
Do users think any additional carbon footprint in extracting and refining the oil is offset by not buying oil from OPEC countries?
in all honesty, that's the least of my worries.
this is a huge expanse of land (and aquifer) that could be devastated by even a small spill. from my reading of the topic, the pipeline is neither necessary nor directly advantageous.
I dunno. There is probably a large amount of value in making sure Canada trades with us first vice Asian competitors.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
EllisEamos wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the 'carbon footprint' aspect (or just involving fossil fuels at all) is a bigger sticking point than this overblown safety issue? I'm pretty sure the worst case spill from this pipeline would pale in comparison to say, the Exxon Valdez.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
tyler wrote:
I'd like to see a study of safety, carbon footprint on a per barrel basis of shipping oil to refineries by pipeline versus by truck.
Do users think any additional carbon footprint in extracting and refining the oil is offset by not buying oil from OPEC countries?
in all honesty, that's the least of my worries.
this is a huge expanse of land (and aquifer) that could be devastated by even a small spill. from my reading of the topic, the pipeline is neither necessary nor directly advantageous.
I dunno. There is probably a large amount of value in making sure Canada trades with us first vice Asian competitors.
but even if the pipeline gets built, the oil isn't going to the usa.
it'll be refined stateside, but it's already been sold.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
simple schoolboy wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the 'carbon footprint' aspect (or just involving fossil fuels at all) is a bigger sticking point than this overblown safety issue? I'm pretty sure the worst case spill from this pipeline would pale in comparison to say, the Exxon Valdez.
well the ogallala aquifer is just one part of the at risk area, but looking at this region specifically we have this part from my post:
from my post wrote:
A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska's sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.
first of all i've bolded the university b/c its the same state school system cited in your link. not to mention, my quote comes from an article written one month earlier. link secondly, the two articles could be speaking about different pipelines, as the new XL pipeline has it going more centrally through the aquifer, while the smaller, original, already in existence, keystone pipeline is "more to the east," as was noted in your article.
that's a huge difference when predicting risk.
now, i am in no way arguing against anything this expert is stating, as its his job/life attached to it, but it also seems like he's talking about different risks than what my link comments on (area effected, rather than the total amount that could be spilled).
this is a huge expanse of land (and aquifer) that could be devastated by even a small spill.
the pipeline's oil has likely already been sold to China anyway. - Ellis
We actually have people at our company right now from the people looking to operate the pipeline in Canada as well as the major players extracting the oil from the tar sands. Nobody in Canada has any interest in selling oil to China and they think we're a bunch of dumbfucks. They do everything they can to keep the oil on the North American continent.
IT'S SUPER RISKY AND THERE ARE NO PIPELINES ANYWHERE IN AMERICA TRANSPORTING OIL AND ESPECIALLY OVER THE ACQUIFER IN QUESTION ZOOOOMG OIL!!!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
