|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [12214143] Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 11:34
All you need to know about the Keystone Pipeline.
The outcome so far has nothing to do with the environment and if you've been acting as if it does, you are a useful idiot for...
Warren Buffett owns 100% of Burlington Northern and the USA company that builds oil tanker cars, Marmon Industries.
Bill Gates owns 20% of Canadian National Railway Company and is it's biggest shareholder as well as owning the Canadian subsidiary of Marmon Industries that builds oil tanker cars in Canada. He also owns 10% of Berkshire Hathaway A.
Burlington Northern is the railway with the best North/South infrastructure and poised to be the Keystone alternative.
The oil from Canada is coming and you've just been a tool siphoning the profits into their pockets.
Chicago style crony capitalism writ large. Did you really buy that shadow boxing between Buffett and Obama?
Used. |
| | | 1 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 11:43
|
So logically we should assume you are a stockholder in Alcoa?
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 11:49
|
Don't ask questions! As he said, he's provided all you need to know.
|
|
| | | 3 | Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 11:53
|
Frick
No, you should assume I used to be a small businessman who used to pay $2 a gal, now I'm a small businessman struggling to survive at $4 a gal gas.
|
|
| | | 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 12:34
|
which happens to be the same price per gal, we paid when Bush was Pres in May 2008.
|
|
| | | 5 | Great One
ID: 340592712 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 12:40
|
Don't you just love the Republicans harp about gas prices now... and just convieniently forget that in 2007-08 it was higher than it is now.
|
|
| | | 6 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 12:44
|
Those were Obamas fault too, no doubt, somehow....or Soros fault anyway...I'm sure..right B?
|
|
| | | 7 | Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 12:53
|
Except for the height of the depression fears right as the bubble was bursting and no one knew exactly how bad it would get, the price was generally lower.
Sarge. It was the speculators, remember that one time I agreed with you? To be fair, 'war with Iran' fears skew things right now. I can't assign that all to O.
|
|
| | |
| | | 9 | Tree
ID: 37226713 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 13:18
|
No, you should assume I used to be a small businessman who used to pay $2 a gal, now I'm a small businessman struggling to survive at $4 a gal gas.
Gas was cheaper under Clinton than it was Reagan. Welcome to Bill's fan club.
But you know everything. We all forgot.
|
|
| | | 10 | Razor
ID: 551031157 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 13:25
|
That article about the oil spill is horrifying.
|
|
| | | 11 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 5111381515 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 14:22
|
The subject thread is horrifying. I was expecting some interesting insight on Keystone, but, I not sure what this thread is about.
|
|
| | | 12 | Tree
ID: 47331814 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 15:07
|
I was expecting some interesting insight on Keystone, but, I not sure what this thread is about.
it's about Baldwin, his hubris, and his Messiah complex.
|
|
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 47331814 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 15:10
|
That article about the oil spill is horrifying.
jesus.
i just read it. literally made me sick to my stomach. i love seafood, but am going to have to really be diligent about the sources.
wow, that was ghastly. blerg.
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 20:09
|
Except for the height of the depression fears right as the bubble was bursting
This is kinda funny. So when the average gas price (Summer 2008) was higher under Bush this was because of the economy. The gas prices now are high only because of Obama.
|
|
| | | 15 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 06:54
|
1) Panic over a depression no one knew just how deep.
2) Panic over a war with Iran cutting off middle east oil deliveries.
Once again you take your reading skills for granted and they aren't.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 07:05
|
C.SuperFreak
The thread clearly shows that the Keystone pipeline shutdown by Obama isn't even remotely about the environment. It isn't even mainly about keeping campaign donations coming in from the enviro-movement. It is almost completely a manufactured market manipulation of the oil delivery method skewing it to a railroad monopoly.
Buffett even had his best buddy from his early Berkshire Hathaway days and fellow Omaha neighbor Dick Holland invent a phony enviro movement called Bold Nebraska to fight pipeline delivery.
|
|
| | | 17 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 07:07
|
It also is an interesting window into Bill Gates' world. Computer monopoly isn't the only game of monopoly he plays.
|
|
| | | 18 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 07:08
|
And of course liberals stand ever at the ready to protect the little guy from rich powerful corrupt trust monopoly power...in yer dreams.
|
|
| | | 19 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 09:58
|
The thread clearly shows that the Keystone pipeline shutdown...
actually, it shows more of your nonsensical ramblings...
never mind that you haven't posted one link in this thread to back up your claims, even if you did, the odds are they'd come from random blogs and other dubious sources.
|
|
| | | 20 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 5111381515 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 10:29
|
"Keystone Pipeline. All you need to know about the Keystone Pipeline."
Boldwin, the Keystone Pipeline is currently online moving oil from Canada to the US. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is currently delayed.
It's factually wrong. You're misleading your audience.
|
|
| | | 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 11:25
|
2) Panic over a war with Iran cutting off middle east oil deliveries.
You mean like the war with Iraq did?
But I have to hand it to you: The whole trick of yelling that we have to go to war with Iran, then blaming Obama for oil prices rising because of uncertainty with Iran, would be brilliant if it weren't so pathetic.
|
|
| | | 22 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 13:13
|
Freak
Keystone and Keystone XL are properly called Keystone phase one, two and three, with phase one already built tho I am not positive phase one is completed.
It would be more efficient to send it to refiners in the gulf of Mexico region where most of the refineries are.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 13:28
|

I read somewhere that they actually intend to eventually reverse the flow of phase one and send oil thinners used in extraction back up to Canada on that route.
Phase one isn't a very ideal route. Obviously Patoka in southern Illinois is not one of the USA's or the worlds' oil distillate transportation hubs.
Leave it at just phase one and obviously most of the Canadian oil is still going to be routed to China over rail instead of USA refineries and USA usage. [tho they are playing political games with Canadian east/west pipelines]
|
|
| | | 24 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 13:35
|
I should explain the political games. Enviros will tell you that the politicians have set up a false dichotomy between sending oil to Vancouver or Kitimat.

Why it's a false dichotomy for enviros is that they consider the real question, "why are we extracting oil from tar sands".
For the USA it's a false dichotomy because the real question for us is, "why send it to China when you've got this great big friendly and hungry customer so close to you?"
|
|
| | | 25 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 13:39
|
The US is already a net exporter of refined fuel, so anything that comes down the pipeline will be exported (maybe to China) anyway.
|
|
| | | 26 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 13:48
|
1) That can change over time. The demand isn't going away, despite Obama's delusions.
2) It's still American jobs and commerce gained or lost.
|
|
| | | 27 | Tree
ID: 93591912 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 14:11
|
2) It's still American jobs and commerce gained or lost.
it's also the rights of Americans lost, and that is what should matter most.
Your Land is My Land - Keystone pipeline company runs roughshod over Texas landowners – and maybe Texas law.
It’s the latest version of the David and Goliath story that has already affected thousands of Texans who’ve been steamrolled by the natural gas industry. But this version goes beyond the usual pipeline land-grabs, because it involves a company taking property years before it will obtain a permit to lay the pipe — a company that may not be in compliance with Texas law and therefore may not have the legal right to take anything.
Despite those questions, TransCanada has been involved in at least 89 eminent domain land seizures in Texas alone.
if you really cared about the issues you claim to care about (Big Brother, Government run wild, the rights of Americans being trampled, etc etc), than this is a reason why you - and most people - should be against these sort of pipelines.
“It might seem that it’s just a little piece of land to most people, so why bother to fight,” (Farm manager and former college basketball star Julia Trigg) Crawford said, “but to us it’s our land, and no one should have the right to simply come in and tell us they’re taking it so that they can make a profit. That doesn’t sit well with us.”
|
|
| | |
| | | 29 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 14:15
|
RE: 26 1. Not likely though, according to the article. In the mean time, the US will be the equivalent of gas station attendants for our good friend China.
2. What Tree said.
Net result: we trade American property to allow a foreign company to profit by selling a strategic resource to foreign countries that may not be exactly friendly to the US.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 15:23
|
That can change over time.
Anything can change over time. Even your mind. Meanwhile, what we know from Keystone's application is that the refined products is not intended to be used in the United States.
If you are pinning your hopes on this that Keystone is not telling the truth on their applications then you've sunk far past Optimistic Land.
It would be more efficient to send it to refiners in the gulf of Mexico region where most of the refineries are.
Exactly--that's the point of the pipeline. And from there, to the handy Gulf of Mexico, through the Canal Zone, and on to China.
Note that Keystone fully expects the Obama administration to approve of the new application in 2013 once submitted.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 15:25
|
It should be noted here that current pipelines from Canada have lots of unused capacity--there is nothing preventing Canada from using the existing pipeline to send another million gallons of oil into the US every day.
|
|
| | | 32 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:18
|
That's kinda curious because I just read that [I think it was Keystone] they just applied to run the pipeline at a higher pressure than previously allowed, so it sounds to me like they are struggling for capacity.
|
|
| | |
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:29
|
Re eminent domain cases, these are the legitimate uses for eminent domain. Illegitimate uses are for example taking someone's land to build a more valuable or profitable building.
|
|
| | | 35 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:31
|
but taking that land so a foreign company can increase its profits...is legit?
|
|
| | | 36 | Tree
ID: 593261915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:32
|
Post 27, Baldwin, was directed to anyone who will read it, but especially you.
|
|
| | | 37 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:34
|
This is America's strategic oil supply too that we are talking about. I can't in my wildest imagination conceive of allowing NIMBY prohibiting Keystone.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:36
|
#32: Pressure just means trying to get oil through faster (which means better piping, pumping, etc).
But there is no reason not to put crude into the pipelines that already exist in the meantime.
This is not a matter of Keystone trying to rush this through (as the GOP seems to be implying--that this needs to be done yesterday). The extra capacity in the existing pipelines can take some of the pressure until they get their pipeline running in 2015 (as they have indicated, in their applications).
|
|
| | | 39 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:38
|
That link in 33 is full of inaccuracies.
In TransCanada's own application to build the pipeline, they state that one of the benefits is that they can bypass midwest US refineries and go straight to the Texas ports. Transcanada's own estimate is that in the US, this will raise the cost of a barrel of crude by $3 and a gallon of gas by $0.20.
Why would they admit this? Because the application in question was for the Canadian section of the pipeline. Causing a rise in oil prices in the US was heralded as an economic benefit for oil-rich Canada and thus a reason for the Canadian government to approve the permit.
The Canadian Permit
Yeah, this is a great deal for the old USA.
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:42
|
Well heck, let's only allow them to build it to one single refinery and that refinery can name their own price for oil. That's a great idea.
|
|
| | | 41 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 16:46
|
Well heck, let's only allow them to build it to one single refinery and that refinery can name their own price for oil. That's a great idea.
That is exactly what they are doing. I'm glad you agree that is bad for our country.
|
|
| | | 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 17:00
|
Refineries are messy, ugly, resource suckers. Why no one thought twice about the fact that the Canadian company was willing to build into the cost of the product the additional cost of transporting it thousands of miles additional miles to be refined is no surprise.
This is like a recent application for a home improvement company we received here. Virtually the entire store was just across the border in another town with a lower tax rate, while they were applying to our town to put the parking lot and all the traffic. Not such a good deal for us. Great deal for the other town.
|
|
| | | 43 | Tree
ID: 37226713 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 18:11
|
Nimby???? It's a trans national pipeline that is gobbling up land before the proper permits have even been approved... This isn't a wal mart or a halfway house.
You'd willingly give up your family's generational homestead for something that isn't even legal??
If so, it makes much of what you post on government and big brother and the little guy an even bigger farce.
|
|
| | | 44 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 23:12
|
NE will take 6-9 months to rule on new route
Washington (CNN) -- A proposed new route through Nebraska for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline will require six to nine months of review under the normal process conducted by state and federal officials, a Nebraska official said Thursday.
Mike Linder, director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, told CNN that the proposal from TransCanada will undergo a public comment period followed by final revisions by the company before his agency does its full assessment.
Noting the delay in the project over the route alteration, Linder said: "We're still saying six to nine months."
TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline from Canada's oil sands production in northern Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast, is seeking approval for a new route east of the initially proposed route, which went over an environmentally sensitive aquifer.
A State Department official told CNN on Thursday that the Obama administration has not received a new permit application for the proposed alternate route for the northern portion of the pipeline...
|
|
| | | 45 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 01:43
|
Investors.com -- April 03, 2012
...
The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama's de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.
Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That's about to change.
...
|
|
| | | 46 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 01:49
|
high as it seems to be, it isnt any different from what Germans for ex, have been paying since the late 70s.
|
|
| | | 47 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 02:51
|
If Canada wants to pull out of NAFTA they are welcome to do so. But it isn't in their best interests to pull out. Most of their oil comes here already. They have no extra refinery capacity that I'm aware of. And the US has ten times the number of refineries anyway. Finally, "market prices" in this case is exactly what the US already pays (which is kept "artificially low" mostly because of all the pipelines we've built to allow Canadian oil to flow here).
The editorial plays a bit fast and loose with things, in any case. Twice taking a swipe at "mainstream media" for no clear reason except to shore up their bona fides with the far right for whom the codes words mean something.
|
|
| | | 48 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 03:45
|
Balrog#41
That is just an absurd response.
It would actually be great for our country to be able to name the price of oil. Exactly the opposite of what you said. It would also be a ridiculous and unfair and unsustainable situation for Canada to find themselves. They would simply send it all west to ports on their own coast if forced into that corner.
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 03:49
|
Sarge#46
You say that like it's a good thing.
PD#47
What have you and Obama got against us paying 'artificially low' for gas?
|
|
| | | 50 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 08:40
|
What have you got against Americans fighting for their land against illegal seizures from foreign-based countries?
|
|
| | |
| | | 52 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 10:19
|
B#48
Apparently you don't understand.
TransCanada has explicitly stated that the pipeline will increase the cost of fuel for US consumers. This is because, rather than sending the crude to refineries in Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, etc., all of it will go to the Texas coast. The result is increased transportation costs which causes increased fuel costs for millions of consumers in the interior.
Why do you think this is good?
|
|
| | | 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 10:25
|
My point was unclear, it seems. We aren't paying anything artificially low about the prices. We ensured that our prices are low by allowing pipelines through our country in which the oil can be delivered without the need to take it by tanker.
Sad how you jump to defend anti-American whining when done while a Democrat is in the White House. If a Republican was there, you'd be responding to Wilmer's post with a pithy note about how Harper is a Socialist hoping to prop up a communist/socialist health care system on the backs of US drivers.
|
|
| | | 54 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 11:48
|
B, re your comment on my 46...
When I was in Germany with the Army, back in 1976...I paid roughly 80 cent/qt for gas. At the time, I was paid $460/m. My point is, if we are going to be honest about it, we (Americans) have largely been spoiled by our own affluent lifestyles. Now that we are sharing the pain of a lot of the rest of the world, we cant seem to stop whining.
Why is that?
|
|
| | | 55 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 12:23
|
I have a very big problem with this pipeline, mainly I have a problem with eminent domain. I have a problem with it used by our own government (I understand it and acknowledge there could be valid reasons for it I just have not encountered them yet). So imagine my concerns over a foreign company taking lands from our citizens purely for their profit margins.
|
|
| | | 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 12:31
|
I don't mind the foreign government part so much as the private company part. Just IMO.
|
|
| | | 57 | Tree
ID: 153542011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 13:13
|
I have a very big problem with this pipeline, mainly I have a problem with eminent domain. I have a problem with it used by our own government (I understand it and acknowledge there could be valid reasons for it I just have not encountered them yet). So imagine my concerns over a foreign company taking lands from our citizens purely for their profit margins.
that's the article i linked to in 27.
even worse, they're taking this land without even necessarily having the proper permits in place to build the pipeline!
|
|
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 13:44
|
Now that we are sharing the pain of a lot of the rest of the world, we cant seem to stop whining.
Why is that?
Because when big bad father Germany taxed gasoline until regular Germans had to ride bikes, trains and buses...they meekly took it up the wazzoo.
When Americans are threatened by a socialist who wants them riding solar powered cars or nothing...they fight back.
|
|
| | | 59 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 13:47
|
pd in 56 - I can't honestly say which bothers me more. The fact that my government could tell me they are taking my home and land away so a private entity could benefit or the fact that my government could take my land away so another foreign government could benefit.
Both are wrong on so many levels and an abuse of what eminent domain really should be used for.
|
|
| | |
| | | 61 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 14:07
|
I agree with you Khahan. Wasn't there a case (and a thread here) about an eminent domain case on the east coast (Connecticut?) The argument was that a developer wanted the land and it would benefit the community with jobs from the revitilized land. The pipeline case doesn't even seem to offer that, just we want the land, give it to us. Wouldn't they have a potentially cheaper and much friendlier PR if they had just tried to purchase land first or negotiate leases?
|
|
| | | 62 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 14:11
|
If it's anything like land acquisition for a highway, and I am sure it is, they already tried the fair offer, and are cleaning up the relatively small number of impossible negotiations left over with eminent domain.
|
|
| | | 63 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 14:39
|
If it's anything like land acquisition for a highway, and I am sure it is, they already tried the fair offer, and are cleaning up the relatively small number of impossible negotiations left over with eminent domain
Ok, point blank question time Boldwin, a distinct yes or no:
Do you have a problem with a foreign government and/or a foreign private entity using eminent domain here in American for that said foreigners gain?
|
|
| | | 64 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 15:11
|
#62/63: What happens in eminent domain is that the government makes the offer and you have (generally) 30 days to accept it. Even if you don't accept it, the government gets the land after 30 days anyway.
The only thing you can do is argue that the offer wasn't fair.
Luckily, typically on pipeline deals, the eminent domain doesn't happen too often, believe it or not. What usually happens is that the utility negotiates rights of way, maintenance agreements, and performance bonds. Like electric poles, for instance: They have the ability to go in and build, future access for maintenance, and so on.
|
|
| | | 65 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 15:48
|
Do you have a problem with a foreign government and/or a foreign private entity using eminent domain here in American for that said foreigners gain?
Depends on the necessity of the project to the nation.
If it is to set up the Ground Zero Mosque, no.
If it improves strategic infrastructure vital in wartime, of course, without question, a big yes.
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 15:51
|
how exactly, does Canada accessing the Gulf to sell its oil, enhance US strategic interests?
|
|
| | | 67 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 16:03
|
Especially when the refined Canadian oil is going to China.
|
|
| | | 68 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 18:40
|
Wait till we're at war with the Arab oil countries and Hugo Chavez naturally cuts us off.
Yer gonna love that Canadian oil almost as much as you'll wish you hadn't opposed offshore and Alaska oil.
|
|
| | | 69 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 18:48
|
In your fantasy world B, ask yourself this question...if it came right down to it and we WANTED Chavez's oil...could he stop us from just taking it?
|
|
| | | 70 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 18:49
|
Depends on how many fronts you think a bankrupt former superpower can maintain.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 18:51
|
20 yrs after WWI, Germany maintained 3 fronts vs the world for 1/2 a decade.
|
|
| | | 72 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 19:53
|
How'd that work out?
|
|
| | | 73 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:02
|
Wait till we're at war with the Arab oil countries
Like Iraq?
Those constantly preparing for war have stopped preparing for peace. WWJD, Boldwin?
|
|
| | | 74 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 1331021 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:20
|
Sarge, Mexico and Venezuela's oil supply to the USGC is dwindling. The USGC is looking for a reliable supply. Canada has it. Bakken has it. Building the line guarantees an uninterruptable supply of oil. It can be offloaded at Cushing or the USGC...and would be readily available should the next global conflict arise.
Boldwin, if rail is alternative to moving oil, what would be the price of gas? I'm assuming that the cost to ship oil by rail has to be at least $3 per barrel more than pipeline transportation. All those rail cars full of oil have to come back to the production source, most likely empty.
Perm Dude, what is the current oil situation in the USGC. Is it being refined for usage in the homeland or is it going to China?
|
|
| | | 75 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:48
|
Those constantly preparing for war have stopped preparing for peace. WWJD, Boldwin?
Matt 24:6"YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet." He would wait just a bit longer before he established peace forever.
|
|
| | | 76 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:53
|
CSFreak
I think the infrastructure is more important than counting pennies.
Having all 4 phases of Keystone would encourage and lower the cost of oil production and gasoline supplies all the way up and down the line for refiners and the well owners and increase exploration and supplies thus driving down prices.
|
|
| | | 77 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:55
|
And if you buy the story that Keystone raises prices, you prolly also bought the story that Obamacare saves mnoney.
These are just lies people tell to get stuff passed thru legislatures.
|
|
| | | 78 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:55
|
how would it lower the cost, when the company who would own the line, projects a $3 barrel rise in US crude and 20 cent/gal more at US pumps?
|
|
| | | 79 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 20:57
|
Crosspost.
|
|
| | | 80 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 21:00
|
ahhhhh, so the Canadian Co, wanting to just take American soil; lied to the Canadian Govt. BUT, when Bill O'Rielly said in Apr 2008 that $4/gal pump gas was just the free market at work, then in Apr 2012 said that same $/gal pump price was incompetence by Obama...he wasnt lying, either time.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
|
|
| | | 81 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 21:02
|
I don't you understand the point of Christ if you think the quote from Matthew backs up your war mongering.
And if you buy the story that Keystone raises prices,
You mean the story from Keystone? Like your Bible quote, I don't think you understand the full story.
|
|
| | | 82 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 21:06
|
A) Are you really shocked the pipeline people inflated the benefits to themselves?
B) Obviously both presidents were/are subject to forces beyond their power. I will point out that Bush opened up drilling and Obama was hostile to the oil industry and drilling. That was under their control.
|
|
| | | 83 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Fri, Apr 20, 2012, 23:06
|
"And if you buy the story that Keystone raises prices"
Hang the liars!!
Oh, wait, that was the people that want to build the pipeline that said that.
Long live the liars!!
|
|
| | | 84 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 14:26
|
we pretty much have it on record that Baldwin has no problem with foreign businesses talking American land from American landowners without having any legal reason to do so.
good consistency there.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 19:33
|
A) Are you really shocked the pipeline people inflated the benefits to themselves?
I'm just shocked that the far right is so gullible as to believe the marketing releases are factually accurate and use them as the basis for their stances on issues.
|
|
| | | 86 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 20:23
|
This from the guy who actually believes Obamacare is gonna save cash anywhere besides rationing vital services.
|
|
| | | 87 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 21:05
|
I'm sorry--was that some kind of rebuttal that I wasn't correct about your gullibility regarding Keystone's marketing plans?
|
|
| | | 88 | Tree
ID: 24945199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 10:55
|
Texans don't want the damned pipeline either.
From Fort Worth Weekly...
...the blockade group includes Texas ranchers, property owners, business owners, and environmentalists — some of whom have endured pepper spray, dangerous Taser jolts, and chokeholds administered by local law enforcement officers in attempts to remove them from the path of the pipeline construction.
|
|
| | | 89 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 12:11
|
Some Texans are idiots.
|
|
| | | 90 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 12:24
|
Like Darryl Hannah, Texas tree sitter.
One thing I'd like to investigate further is if there any connection between the route of the XL-pipeline and the proposed TransCanada highway. Like, is the pipeline planned to run down the center of the highway.
Note that there is no obvious connection between the TransCanada company and the TransCanada Highway so far as I can determine.
If it turns out that they share routes, they might even get me protesting.
|
|
| | | 91 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 12:28
|
and there ya have it.....disagree with what B,(aka 'some random guy in the middle of fkn no where'), thinks is best for you, and you're an idiot!
|
|
| | |
| | | 93 | Frick
ID: 2193319 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 13:39
|
Isn't most of Texas criss-crossed with pipelines? It strikes me as a bit hypocritical to be against the Keystone pipeline suddenly.
|
|
| | | 94 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 13:47
|
I dont know about criss-crossed Frick. I did an "Iron Butt" motorcycle ride, 1000 miles in under 24 hrs in TX once. Actually did 1300 miles (650 and change out, then turn around and come back), never left the state, never saw an oil pipeline.
|
|
| | | 95 | slug
ID: 167132313 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 15:43
|
Frick, per the link Tree provided, here's the difference:
"The oil extracted from those sands won’t be used to lower gasoline prices in this country because, the blockaders charge, it’s all going to be shipped overseas. The pipeline’s intended southern terminus is Port Arthur, a designated foreign trade zone where the oil products can be loaded onto oceangoing tankers. The protesters believe that the tens of thousands of promised permanent jobs will end up being a couple of thousand temporary jobs and a few hundred full-time pipeline-monitoring gigs, most filled by Canadians already working for TransCanada.
Most importantly, the protesters say, TransCanada has already shown itself to have a terrible record on pipeline safety, as have other tar sands pipelines already in operation. The blockaders say it adds up to a Canadian company seeking to transport the most dangerous and difficult-to-clean-up oilfield product across thousands of acres of land, much of it being taken by eminent domain or the threat of eminent domain, with almost no benefit being derived by the U.S."
|
|
| | |
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 20:31
|
I would consider opposition to every single energy source with proven technology AKA Obama's energy policy, to represent an ill-advised scheme.
|
|
| | | 98 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 20:37
|
Just what exact;y s conservative, about "drill, drill, drill", "ship, ship, ship" and "to hell with the environment"? Sounds more to me like someone driven by next Qtrs ROI, vs leaving anything meaningful for their children.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 20:52
|
Has oil production increased or decreased the last 4 years? How about natural gas?
The GOP seems hellbent on any help for green energy, but Obama has shown his willingness to back oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear energies.
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:05
|
Obama has shown his willingness to back oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear energies. - PD
What desperation looks like.
|
|
| | | 101 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:08
|
What desperation looks like.
I would consider opposition to every single energy source with proven technology AKA Obama's energy policy
|
|
| | |
| | | 104 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:24
|
link
took the extra 'h' out of PVs link above
|
|
| | | 105 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:31
|
A 15 part series on energy written for those who are betting their own money and need to be reality based.
|
|
| | | 106 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:33
|
Obama is not responsible for inventing fracking. He is responsible for hindering oil exploration offshore and on federal land, as well as preventing Canada from replacing Venezuela as our largest oil supplier.
|
|
| | | 107 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:42
|
A perfect microcosm of Obama's energy policy is Solyndra, and Obama persecuting the Bakken oil field pioneers for a couple dead starlings.
|
|
| | | 108 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:44
|
Now on defense, Boldwin...
I would consider opposition to every single energy source with proven technology AKA Obama's energy policy
If true, this is simply not reflected in the actual numbers.
So, either the President of the United States has virtually nothing to do with the number of wells being dug for oil or gas, or oil production, or coal (this will allow the Right to escape the intolerable position of having to give Obama credit) or he has something to do with it, and he's doing the opposite of what they say he's all about.
So you can look at the numbers and say "Obama didn't do that!" But you can't say Obama is powerless on matters of energy extraction in this country and then blame him for anything having to do with energy.
Oh, we've got a record number of oil and gas rigs operating right now. Damn you, Obama!
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:50
|
No, it's entirely consistent to recognize that American ingenuity has discovered more USA oil resources than in all Saudi Arabia in the last decade...and has discovered how to extract natural gas so efficiently as to produce an energy boom...
...while at the same time recognizing that Obama sits astride this history yelling stop, we're gonna go green even if the technology isn't ready.
|
|
| | |
| | | 111 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:51
|
This is like political BP. Keep 'em coming.
|
|
| | | 112 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 21:57
|
more USA oil resources than in all Saudi Arabia in the last decade
I suppose you're talking about the Green River formation again. If you're willin to be humiliated again with this claim, I'm willing to be the humiliator again.
|
|
| | | 113 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 23:02
|
I've listened to Van Jones.
I've listened to Harold Hamm.
I've researched this stuff.
I've watched Obama promise to bankrupt coal.
I know the record of enviro-opposition to the nuclear industry.
I know how hard it is to get a refinery built.
I know what the energy secretary feels we should be spending on a gallon of gas.
I know the stupid amounts obama has spent on premature green tech.
There isn't enuff spin in the world to make Obama the friend of proven energy sources.
|
|
| | | 114 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 23:20
|
researched this stuff? really? when did oyu start doing that?
|
|
| | | 115 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 23:47
|
We're not spinning, Boldwin. We're offering facts, and you are trying to dodge them because you've "done research" which apparently qualified you to try to rebut facts with your biased impressions.
Keep them coming, however.
I've watched Obama promise to bankrupt coal.
Not exactly. He promised to bankrupt new coal-fired plants, by making them pay for their pollution.
|
|
| | | 116 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Sat, Oct 20, 2012, 06:53
|
If the oil industry invents fracking and unleashes extra natural gas, discovers fields like the Bakken...
Obama can't take any credit. He didn't invent fracking. He didn't make it any easier to drill. He threatens them everywhere they look. He denies them drilling rights everywhere he can.
|
|
| | | 118 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Oct 20, 2012, 09:42
|
He threatens them everywhere they look. He denies them drilling rights everywhere he can.
You continue to throw unsubstantiated accusations in the face of reality. The opposition to fracking in areas where there is a threat to groundwater isn't a threat originating with Obama.
Residents of a northeastern Pennsylvania town who say their well water was poisoned by a gas driller..
...residents in the tiny community of Dimock Township have agreed to a confidential settlement with Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.
Dimock became a flashpoint in the national debate over gas drilling and a technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, after residents claimed in 2009 that Cabot polluted their water supply with methane gas and toxic chemicals and made some of them violently ill.
Cabot denied responsibility. Federal environmental regulators tested the aquifer this year and found the water in Dimock is safe to drink, a conclusion disputed by residents who refuse to use their wells.
State environmental regulators previously determined that Cabot contaminated the aquifer underneath homes along Carter Road in Dimock with explosive levels of methane.... link
When local residents claim their water is being poisoned, do you expect the EPA and state environmental regulators to ignore them?
Who complained about groundwater contamination in
Pavillion, Wyoming?
After local landowners complained about the smell and taste of their water, the EPA began in 2009 to analyze the groundwater outside Pavillion. The agency tested the water in the shallow wells that tap the groundwater above the 169 gas-producing wells in the field; in two municipal wells in the town; and in several surface and deep wells that it drilled for monitoring purposes. It found evidence of contamination in both the shallow and deep wells, and attributed the shallow contamination to the 33 or so nearby surface pits used to store drilling wastes.
Residents in Pa; landowners in Wyoming. These are just the most high profile cases, both from 2009.
while at the same time recognizing that Obama sits astride this history yelling stop
It's 2012. Obama never yelled stop. Fracking is at an all time high, with more fields being developed daily. Yes, the EPA studies continue, as they should, in an effort to identify if and where fracking contaminates critical water sources.
I've researched this stuff.
And failed.
|
|
| | | 119 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:05
|
There isn't enuff spin in the world to make Obama the friend of proven energy sources.
There isn't enough spin in the world which can deny what's actually happening in the real world.
U.S. Poised to Become World's Top Oil Producer
U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer. Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.
The United States will still need to import lots of oil in the years ahead. Americans use 18.7 million barrels per day.
The increase in production hasn’t translated to cheaper gasoline at the pump, and prices are expected to stay relatively high for the next few years because of growing demand for oil in developing nations and political instability in the Middle East and North Africa. Still, producing more oil domestically, and importing less, gives the economy a significant boost.
Of course, long term, crude oil will be replaced as the main transportation energy source, just as coal is being replaced as the main utility energy source.
"We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy." archived copy from Waterloo Courier - Sep 29, 2006
I've listened to Van Jones.
I've listened to Harold Hamm.
Have you listened to Mitt Romney? Of course, his current rhetoric has been altered to fit the irresponsible howling of the Drill! Baby! Drill! crowd, who can't even admit that we are drilling more and more effectively, resulting in the biggest single-year increase in domestic crude production since Harry Truman was president.
|
|
| | | 120 | Boldwin
ID: 2397243 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:15
|
Release the offshore, release the federal lands, release Alaska before you expect any pats on the back.
|
|
| | | 121 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:34
|
There is currently drilling offshore. There is currently drilling on federal lands. There is currently drilling in Alaska.
|
|
| | | 122 | Boldwin
ID: 2397243 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 14:10
|
If you had a 100% guarantee of an oil strike, you would die of old age before you saw a barrel of oil squeeze past the current EPA regulatory regime and other roadblocks.
|
|
| | | 123 | Boldwin
ID: 2397243 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 14:10
|
In those areas.
|
|
| | | 124 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 14:18
|
then, ummm...why are folks drilling there....right now?
|
|
| | | 125 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 14:42
|
In 2010, the Obama administration approved the first new offshore drilling permits in decades--since then 122 shallow water drilling permits have been approved for the Gulf of Mexico. Late in 2010 the deep water regs were put into place, and 167 permits were approved (including 140 after the BP spill). Additionally, early in 2011, the Administration approved 35 new offshore drilling permits.
Right now Shell is drilling exploratory wells 90 miles off the shore of Alaska.
Also:
The claim is simply bogus that Obama hasn't already "released" offshore drilling.
|
|
| | | 126 | Boldwin
ID: 2397243 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 15:26
|
Right now Shell is drilling exploratory wells 90 miles off the shore of Alaska.
And the EPA is holding up virtually every last project. Letting them find it and then preventing them from recovering the oil is an especially excruciating form of torture.
|
|
| | | 127 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 15:36
|
"... preventing them from recovering the oil..."
Evidence please
|
|
| | | 128 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 15:41
|
There is no evidence--he's futurecasting. Boldwin assumes that the EPA will prevent Shell from actually taking the oil they find in the future. An opinion at odds with Royal Shell, I should add.
A classic dodge. His point about Obama not allowing offshore drilling was demonstrated as false. Now he's saying "sure, but they won't let them keep the oil!"
|
|
| | | 129 | Boldwin
ID: 2397243 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 16:55
|
Here is the devastating Obama obstruction that happens to companies who invest in gulf offshore drilling. Note the illegal and unethical government obstruction tactics including rigging the appearance of peer review. All the governments own experts deny they had supported the moratorium.
Here is the devastating Obama obstruction that happens to companies that drill in the Alaska area set aside by congress for oil production.Since Shell began its journey to drill in the Arctic seven years ago, the company has negotiated an inefficient thicket of federal agencies, dealt with federal delays, and fended off numerous lawsuits from conservation groups. That should change, he said.
“To put it bluntly, the regulatory process for drilling in Alaska is broken; it is not efficient, it results in unnecessary and costly delays, and it needs to be fixed,” he wrote.
Shell has spent $4.7 billion — including $2.2 billion buying its original leases — to meet federal requirements associated with exploratory drilling. It expects that federal approval would follow in an orderly manner, but that hasn’t happened, Slaiby said.
--- The administration has already put 85 percent of offshore acreage off limits through its 2012-2017 OCS leasing plan, placed Federal lands in the west off limits, imposed and proposed more regulation on energy production, and called for more taxation of the domestic oil and natural gas industry. - Institute For Energy Research --- Obama shut down all Alaska Arctic ocean oil drilling in http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2012/10/what-did-obama-say-about-increasing-drilling-2460506.html"target=blank>April 25, 2011 and then temporarily relented in June 26, 2012 in time for the campaign season. It doesn't matter how much exploration you allow, how much interest you show in regulatory agency reform, how much posing you do as a friend of energy, when you are just going to slap an EPA air pollution ban on the project at the end. --- This is what Obama is actually out to ensure...Solar, Wind Account For All New US Electricity in September
Of course it does so at sky high premium prices and inefficiency and at the expense of the technologies that are proven to work affordably. --- You don't want to know what's next and Obama is making sure you don't find out about it until it's too late.“The Obama-EPA plans to move full speed ahead to implement this agenda if President Obama wins a second term,” Inhofe notes in his report. “These rules taken together will inevitably result in the elimination of millions of American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas and coal production.”
Citing a few of the president’s “job killing” regulations, Inhofe contends that new EPA rules would devastate the economy in the coming years:
President Obama has spent the past year punting on a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more. From greenhouse gas regulations to water guidance to the tightening of the ozone standard, the Obama-EPA has delayed the implementation of rule after rule because they don’t want all those pink slips and price spikes to hit until after the election. But President Obama’s former climate czar Carol Browner was very clear about what’s in store for next year: she told several green groups not to worry because President Obama has a big green ‘to-do’ list for 2013 so they’ll get what they want. The radical environmental left may not need to worry but what about hard working Americans who will lose their jobs and be subjected to skyrocketing energy prices thanks to the Obama-EPA?
The report concludes that if activated, regulations on greenhouse gases would inflict a $300-billion to $400-billion annual burden, resulting in a notable price hike on gasoline and home heating. “The requirements are so strict they virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation,” Inhofe explains. “In a thinly veiled political move, the agency has put off finalizing the proposal until after the election.”
|
|
| | | 130 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 17:12
|
The EPA is necessary to ensure we don't have even more Deepwater Horizon episodes.
And you seem to be missing the fact that, despite the government actually taking seriously its mandate to keep an eye on the environment, wells are still being dug, and that the Obama Administration has been the one to allow new offshore drilling in the Arctic.
Has is been a long process for Shell? You betcha. But is was Obama, not Bush, who approved the drilling. And you have no evidence that they will not allow them to keep the oil. None.
|
|
| | | 131 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 12:04
|
“To put it bluntly, the regulatory process for drilling in Alaska is broken; it is not efficient, it results in unnecessary and costly delays, and it needs to be fixed,” he wrote.
I noticed you left out the paragraphs that followed, especially this one:
Begich introduced legislation to create a one-stop shop last year, but that awaits Senate approval, said Miller. But the Obama Administration liked the idea and last year brought together several permitting agencies into a high-level working group that can speed up reviews of Alaska drilling projects.
That doesn't exactly jibe with Here is the devastating Obama obstruction that happens to companies that drill in the Alaska area set aside by congress for oil production.
A look at leasing in this area is inconsistent with Boldwin's claims of devastating Obama obstruction.
Seven lease tract sales have been held by the BLM, in both the Northwest (NW) and Northeast (NE) Planning Areas. Lease tracts were offered in the NE in 1999, 2002, and 2010, in the NW in 2004, and 2006. In 2008 and 2011, lease tracts in both the NE and NW were offered. The BLM will be holding annual oil and gas lease sales for the NPR-A. The next lease sale is scheduled for November 2012. The BLM currently administers approximately 186 federal oil and gas leases.
link
That's more leases offered in Obama's first 4 years than in George W Bush's first 4 years. Rather than focusing on the barriers that prohibit expediting production(multi-agencies, never-ending lawsuits, revenue sharing, to name a few) while maintaining as much environmental integrity as possible with extraction in a fragile ecosystem in one of the few areas of pristine land remaining in the nation, we're bombarded with devastating Obama obstruction. Boldwin's abandonded any pretense of being a conservative and adopted a fully-embraced persona of a fringe right distortionist.
|
|
| | | 132 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 12:12
|
Of course he has. Everything's Obama's fault. I'm pretty sure that he'd be undefeated in fantasy football if it weren't for Marxist Alinskyite Obama administration tactics.
|
|
| | | 133 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 12:40
|
That's not only more leases offered, but more leases offered before his first term is over, including a six-month pause for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. So in a little under 3.5 years Obama offered more leases than the oilman George W. Bush.
Additionally, there are hundreds of miles of coastline that Obama opened up for exploration that were previously never available.
|
|
| | | 134 | Boldwin
ID: 349252518 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 19:32
|
It doesn't matter how many exploratory leases he allows or how creative he gets in reshuffling regulator bodies. The EPA is still gonna disallow those wells.
|
|
| | | 135 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 20:00
|
And so ends today's episode of Boldwin's Fantasy predictions.
Be sure to join us tomorrow when Boldwin claims Obama and Ahmadinejad have been secretly carrying on a homosexual relationship for the past 25 years
|
|
| | | 136 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 21:13
|
Re: 134 --
|
|
| | | 137 | Boldwin
ID: 45133619 Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 21:42
|
Between the times they were puffing Obama's energy policies in April, and October, there was a 6 month lull in songs of praise to Obama.
Was this the reason?
|
|
| | | 139 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 09:40
|
Wow.
Walked the whole dang thing.

I'd think about America, and about how the history of the place would come to life, and how my very path would be the rolling parchment onto which our history has been scribed. I'd felt the ghost of the Pawnee horseman at my shoulder. I'd seen the arms of the pioneer building his homestead. I'd heard the laughter of the Creole Cowboy. I'd admired the craftsmanship of the pipeliner, and marveled at the genius of the engineer.
When I think of the men and women of North America, I don't think we need this pipeline. A pipeline is built to send a resource from a place that has a lot of something to a place that doesn't. But civilization won't collapse without oil; it'll collapse without clean water, healthy soil, and a stable climate. What we ultimately need, it seems, is what no pipeline can bring because it's already here. Walk across America, and view the paths that were once been blazed by hand tool, the wilderness tamed by pluck, the tree roots yanked out by grit, and see, within us all, the deep reservoirs of goodness, the wellsprings of love, and you can't help but believe that -- with our nimble hands, inventive minds, compassionate souls, and a good pair of feet -- we can go far.
|
|
| | | 140 | Boldwin
ID: 473201110 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 11:27
|
My problem with those sentiments, in the laughing creole cowboy era they shouldn't count on inventions that haven't been invented yet no matter how plucky, nimble, inventive and compassionate they are. Don't trade in yer saddle until you see the expressway and buy the car.
I'm all for solar chainsaws...when I finally see a good one.
|
|
| | | 141 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 12:00
|
Sometimes easy does not equal better. Not always, by sometimes the hard way is better. Particularly in the long run.
|
|
| | | 142 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 14:47
|
The alternative to the Keystone XL is to build a Canadian pipeline from Alberta to BC and ship it someplace to be refined. The refusal to build the pipeline does not stop the tar sands from being extracted and refined, it will actual increase the amount of fuel and greenhouse gasses emitted in order to accomplish their goal. If that dude walked the Alberta-BC route, I think he would also find some amazing scenery and fragile ecosystems.
The opposition the the XL is misplaced. All the lobbying needs to be focused on Canada. In the end, the XL opponents want tar sands oil to remain in the ground. Stopping the XL won't accomplish this goal. Convincing the Canadians to leave the tar sands in the ground is the only way, and good luck with that.
|
|
| | | 143 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 17:41
|
I haven't verified, but I was assuming the hiker was Canadian. At least he started in northern Alberta and referred to himself as a North American.
|
|
| | | 144 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 18:47
|
The way I see the opposition to the XL pipeline is thus:
Citizens X are rabidly anti-beef and anti-factory farming/ranching. They are protesting the creation of a special railroad through the US to transport cows from Alberta to Texas because it could derail and kill a bunch of cows, they expel the cow manure from the cars as they are rolling, fouling the aquifer, the cows create a lot of methane gas, etc... but really, they just hate the slaughter of cows. The Canadian ranchers simply ship their cattle to the BC coast and then they get shipped to slaughterhouses elsewhere, not a single cow is spared. Citizens X declare victory.
As long as it is economically profitable, those tar sands will be made into gasoline, climate be damned, XL pipeline or not.
Alison Redford, the premier of the Canadian province that is home to the oil sands formations that would supply the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the United States, said Tuesday that critics of the project had distorted its environmental effects and exaggerated the impact of developing the oil. “We’re an exporting economy,” she said, insisting that the billions of barrels of heavy crude known as bitumen embedded in tarlike formations will be exploited with or without the pipeline. “Alberta does have other options,” she said, including pipeline or overland transport to Canada’s Atlantic or Pacific coasts or even to the Arctic Ocean.
Look, I'm certainly not a Big Oil apologist, but I know a losing battle when I see one.
|
|
| | | 145 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 19:08
|
I'm not really up on the issue, and haven't really formed an opinion. The website, writing and pics of the dude who hiked it sure are cool tho.
|
|
| | | 146 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 19:11
|
If you define the battle as "stopping the tar sands from being extracted" then, sure.
But maybe the battle is "stopping a more poorly constructed pipeline from going across the country (the pipeline through Canada will have a better BMP throughout). So maybe it is better to force the oil into a better and more expensive pipeline, in the end, strictly through Canada. I could certainly live with that.
|
|
| | | 147 | Boldwin
ID: 16361119 Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 20:12
|
I know a losing battle when I see one. - SZ
The going wage for a truck driver there is $200,000 a yr.
|
|
| | |
|
|