Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:58 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: General Gas Talk > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do we need Keystone XL? Back to Topics
yodudebc

Champion Author
Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:14:08 AM

I'm interested in Canadian and US responses.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 9, 2013 3:41:54 PM

No
Profile Pic
PhilnTX
All-Star Author Dallas

Posts:798
Points:906,990
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 11:14:58 AM

Yes
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 10:22:12 AM

no
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,948
Points:175,000
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 2:59:00 AM

Wind and solar are dead end technologies. Plus they can't exist without massive government welfare programs.

As for global warming, that is a natural function of the earth. Mankind's use of conventional fuels does not cause GW. It certainly is not caused by CO2 production.

Profile Pic
brillo54
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:2,710
Points:573,210
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 12:36:50 AM

Yes
Profile Pic
waynecz
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:1,790
Points:771,970
Joined:Jul 2012
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 12:08:15 AM

yes
Profile Pic
waynecz
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:1,790
Points:771,970
Joined:Jul 2012
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 12:07:47 AM

yes
Profile Pic
ZR1S10
Rookie Author Chicago

Posts:71
Points:4,485
Joined:Jul 2013
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 8:11:45 PM

"I don't want the greater availability of oil to discourage research into alternatives to fossil fuels because I believe the threat of global warming is very real." That's it right there.

Plus the oil companies don't build based on "minimum possible safety risks to the environment" they would cut every corner for profit and put anything and everything at risk.
Profile Pic
Houckster
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:11,107
Points:768,635
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 8:04:25 PM

For the foreseeable future, this country will be dependent on fossil fuels and the more domestic energy we can produce the more secure we are as a country, the less we're at the mercy of oil speculation and the better our trade balance. That's the reality as I see it.

IF the pipeline can truly be built so that it poses the minimum possible safety risk to the environment, then it probably should be built. That said, I have severe misgivings about it because I don't want the greater availability of oil to discourage research into alternatives to fossil fuels because I believe the threat of global warming is very real.

[Edited by: Houckster at 8/7/2013 8:05:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:5,001
Points:57,705
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 6:47:14 PM

.. NO!!! Oil companies want the XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil into northern midwest USA and cross USA down to Texas... then ship it out of Texas to overseas... while rich Texan oilmen make huge profits on it... so... NO!!!

.. However, if the oil was distributed across northern midwest USA instead to produce lower priced gasoline here... then... YES!!!
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,052
Points:3,586,825
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 6:23:13 PM

yes
Profile Pic
slicerette
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:4,152
Points:732,765
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 5:03:49 PM

Yes, let's replace heavy crude oil from unfriendly Venezuela (an OPEC member) with heavy Canadian crude.

I notice that the "greenies" never protest heavy crude from Venezuela.
Profile Pic
coffeerage
Champion Author Las Vegas

Posts:1,803
Points:285,050
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 3:32:05 PM

Yes
Profile Pic
ningvoy
Veteran Author San Diego

Posts:451
Points:215,160
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 3:17:03 PM

no
Profile Pic
Philo_Gray
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:3,076
Points:696,430
Joined:Jan 2013
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 2:46:51 PM

Yes. I someone want to build it, let them. It not government money.
Profile Pic
Wanda127
Champion Author Florida

Posts:4,982
Points:1,514,610
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 12:56:33 PM

Yes
Profile Pic
cools1611
Champion Author Providence

Posts:1,164
Points:408,665
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 12:49:35 PM

What is keystone XL?
Profile Pic
lwood655
Champion Author New Orleans

Posts:1,048
Points:792,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 11:34:21 AM

yes
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2013 11:18:56 AM

No
Profile Pic
michkris2011
All-Star Author Champaign

Posts:969
Points:1,002,070
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2013 1:44:25 PM

Yes we need it
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,948
Points:175,000
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2013 12:02:25 PM

The only logical decision is to build Keystone.

XL will displace 830,000bpd of mid east oil. That is more than the output of several hostile opec states combined.


The oil is coming out of the ground, if not shipped by xl, it will ship by 1000s of trains daily at double the cost to consumers.

Profile Pic
cools1611
Champion Author Providence

Posts:1,164
Points:408,665
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2013 11:41:03 AM

I don't think so
Profile Pic
nichols
Champion Author Halifax

Posts:8,959
Points:2,377,490
Joined:Aug 2003
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2013 11:27:00 AM

Nuclear is not going to happen because we do not try other safer nuclear options besides uranium fuel even though there are much safer fuels for nuclear power plants.
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2013 11:01:05 AM

no
Profile Pic
traffic cop
Champion Author Boston

Posts:3,035
Points:1,086,920
Joined:Oct 2004
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2013 10:04:30 PM

Maybe the more recent wave of unrest and terrorists' offensives in the MidEast will prod the Obama administration to a more realistic assessment of Keystone XL.

Naaaaw, I was just enjoying a little fantasy. It will still be more taxpayer money dumped down the "sustainable energy" rat hole.
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2013 12:41:41 PM

no
Profile Pic
dgsteven
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:3,410
Points:812,275
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2013 3:15:51 AM

yes, I think so
Profile Pic
Steveo763
Veteran Author Twin Cities

Posts:306
Points:106,265
Joined:Jul 2013
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2013 12:15:19 AM

Yes, if there's a requirement to use the Oil Domestically in North America, so Canada, Mexico and, of course, USA. If this is possible, I think it's a good way to cut our ties from foreign oil; similarly, these can create many many jobs with additional refineries, what have you. I think it would be a nice uptick for North America since all the money will circulate domestically rather than being sent overseas, so it will make us wealthier as a nation by keeping money here.

No, if there's no requirement to keep in in NA it will be shipped to the coast to be loaded into a super tanker to be sent to the highest bidder. Sure there is a need for exports for both USA and Canada, but this isn't a long-term viable solution; we'll simple continue importing the next cheapest oil source we can get our hands on.

Also, environmentally, the tar sands is possibly one of the worst ways to source our energy from as it's very viscous and this requires higher amounts of pressure to push the same volume of oil through a pipeline. I won't deny there's inherent pipeline differences that have made newer lines safer; although visiting a petroleum pipeline leaksite up in Bemidji MN a weeks ago have changed my views on pipelines. The leak happened in 1979 and the area still reeks of petroleum; and has impacted the surface, subsurface, and naturally the groundwater at the site. For the sake of full disclosure, the site isn't as remediated as it could have been since there is no human life within the reception area of the site so there hasn't been a need to dump endless resources into remediation. However, undoubtedly if there were homes, etc. nearby there would definitely be a need for mitigation such as soil ventilation(ensures petroleum vapors don't enter the home), and I highly doubt the groundwater would ever be safe within any of the homeowner's lifetimes.

Off topic: Petroleum is nasty stuff, and in my opinion Nuclear energy is the only long-term viable solution to energy issues, there really needs to be more funding of Fusion energy, because there would literally be no energy worries as we would have a limitless amount of energy and we would essentially have the power of the sun on earth. I really think oil, natural gas, and other energy sources know this and lobby against funding these types of energy. They surely use nasty Nuclear Fission Rhetoric about endless amounts of waste fuel that will forever be dangerous; fusion on the otherhand is relatively harmless upon joining the atoms. Bio fuels, and Solar require land-use changes that alter the hydrologic cycles, and also increases the amount of solar radiation absorbed at the surface exacerbating climate change. Also the biofuels may absorb carbon from the atmosphere, but there isn't really a net change because the soil is tilled and the stored carbon just volatilizes and loses the carbon that was stored.

Hydroelectric is also a terrible way of obtaining energy because it hurt the way that the rivers, etc. would have flowed and the natural formation and changes in stream direction over time. The dams that go along with most hydroelectric stations trap all the sediment in that area rather than flowing downstream and disbursing evenly and helping to send beneficial fertile soils downstream.

Anyway, I digress, everyone is against Nukes which is the only option that really makes sense, people are just misinformed because an endless source of energy would probably be the end of mankind, since wars would undoubtedly be fought over it. Although, there could be peace over using the sources to benefit mankind throughout the world.

Profile Pic
DoctorV
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:4,793
Points:793,380
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 11:18:46 PM

Well WhiskeyBurner, oil pipelines run through neighborhoods in the same way.
Profile Pic
WhiskeyBurner
Veteran Author Illinois

Posts:450
Points:15,855
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 11:14:20 PM

Still say no.

That said, I also saw a freight train with around a dozen rail cars that were placarded for Crude Oil............just a couple blocks from the high school I graduated from and right through the middle of several neighborhoods.
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 12:38:27 PM

no
Profile Pic
grim_farva
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:2,480
Points:572,775
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 11:03:05 AM

yes we do
Profile Pic
PassmyGas
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:880
Points:769,380
Joined:Jul 2010
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 10:54:56 AM

no
Profile Pic
nichols
Champion Author Halifax

Posts:8,959
Points:2,377,490
Joined:Aug 2003
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2013 10:37:34 AM

one moment the US wants Canada to guarantee the supply of oil but the next moment they will not allow the building of a pipeline to help that guarantee. No wonder the rest of the world does not trust America, as soon as they think they can get away with it they renege on their written promises.
Profile Pic
yodudebc
Champion Author Vancouver

Posts:8,834
Points:1,070,580
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Jun 28, 2013 12:20:26 AM

No
Profile Pic
weddy11
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:4,421
Points:1,034,425
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Jun 26, 2013 9:53:48 AM

No
Profile Pic
Mikeyl
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:8,572
Points:1,774,180
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 26, 2013 9:30:14 AM

Sure.

While the railroads can transport the oil (as they are now), it is no where near as safe as a dedicated pipeline would be.

Oil must be transported from where it is to where it is refined. They aren't going to build a refinery in North Dakota. Too cold and too remote (sorry, North Dakotans - no offense). It's just not where a large population of Americans are living (which is why many people want to live there, probably!).

It has to get from here to there. How else should it be moved?
Profile Pic
jake13ny
Veteran Author Long Island

Posts:303
Points:647,385
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Jun 26, 2013 8:56:25 AM

no
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,948
Points:175,000
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Jun 26, 2013 8:55:11 AM

:::Still hasn't been canceled?:::


Obama has political debts to pay. Those debt holders expect him to cancel it. He is being pressured by US hating enviros like the Sierra Club to cancel Keystone.

His speeches yesterday set the stage for energy and climate Armageddon. Despite it being a no - brainer to build Keystone, despite the US being the natural trading partner for Canada. Obama is an idealogue and will hold to party politics in spite of the destruction such decisions will make. Obama has every intention of laying waste to the US.

Alberta crude is the perfect raw material to supply Gulf coast refineries and end the importation of Venezuelan crude. That is a top strategic decision and is again a no brainer. This White House spurns our friends and kisses the ring of our enemies. It makes no sense to conduct trade with a country that hates us while our supposed friend to the north is left hanging.

Things are different now that the world and the US is awash in oil. Before we had no choice, we had to buy from Caracas. That is no longer the case.
Profile Pic
_Sparty_
Champion Author Denver

Posts:4,596
Points:1,295,165
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 26, 2013 8:17:39 AM

Still hasn't been canceled?
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,052
Points:3,586,825
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2013 4:48:41 PM

yes
Profile Pic
jonjon57
Champion Author Raleigh

Posts:2,597
Points:727,515
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2013 2:16:15 PM

Yes
Profile Pic
traffic cop
Champion Author Boston

Posts:3,035
Points:1,086,920
Joined:Oct 2004
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2013 1:16:33 PM

Wait till Fort McMurray dries out, or bring a kayak.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,948
Points:175,000
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2013 11:35:13 PM

QUOTE :::Hemond ..... claims to have visited various locations in the Bakken/Alberta fields.:::


I haven't gotten to Fort McMurray, but it is on the short list.
Profile Pic
stinkpickle
Sophomore Author Iowa

Posts:110
Points:3,705
Joined:Aug 2007
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2013 12:44:58 PM

XL? I drink Keystones out of the regular sized cans.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,948
Points:175,000
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2013 8:36:38 AM

QUOTE ::::Everyone seems to assume that if we build the Keystone XL pipeline we will be the ones getting the oil, and we won't be dependent on foreign oil any more.:::


Another assumption is if we don't build Keystone, the Chinese will get the output. The reality is there is plenty of oil in the Athabasca for Gulf contracts, Chinese contracts, Canadian domestic use, and other Asian markets.

Keystone will not take 100% of the output. Neither North America nor China need the oil. The Chinese are not the natural customer for Albertan oil, the US is. The Chinese are looking for diversity with Alberta. Ultimately they are moving to self-sufficiency. Until that occurs (soon) they are diversifying in their supply.

Recent important new oil partners are Myanmar and Iraq. Iraq in particular is shaping up to be China's most important supply partner. China is sinking huge investments into Iraqi domestic production. The two are a good match. Both countries have cordial relations and China is well liked in Iraq. The feeling is mutual.

Ironic isn't it?... liberals have the rallying cry of "No blood for oil" and "Bush's war for oil". The reality is the Chinese get all the Iraqi oil, while the US got the bill. The only blood expended was to secure Chinese oil demand.


[Edited by: Hemond at 6/24/2013 8:41:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
phil42
Rookie Author Dayton

Posts:87
Points:697,025
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2013 7:55:51 AM

Everyone seems to assume that if we build the Keystone XL pipeline we will be the ones getting the oil, and we won't be dependent on foreign oil any more. But, we won't get anything. Exxon-Mobile will. The oil will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like - and they will. The oil companies sell to the world market, and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, that oil is for the whole world, not just America. There's absolutely no guarantee it would result in the United States having more oil or lower prices.

U.S. oil production is already up, but so is world demand. Rising needs from developing countries like China means global demand is outpacing global supply. That's a recipe for higher prices.
Profile Pic
Norm1947
Champion Author Flint

Posts:8,554
Points:1,059,805
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2013 12:20:43 AM

Yes
Profile Pic
traffic cop
Champion Author Boston

Posts:3,035
Points:1,086,920
Joined:Oct 2004
Message Posted: Jun 23, 2013 10:57:40 PM

Houckster, I haven't answered you directly in quite a while; it seemed mutually frustrating. Anyway, here goes.

You quoted me and Hemond at some length, then dismissed us by saying,"I guess there's no reasoning with the Hard Right. I don't know why I bothered." Essentially, you dismissed us with an ad hominem remark. Hemond has shown himself to be professionally informed on these matters, and claims to have visited various locations in the Bakken/Alberta fields. I consider myself a "crunchy conservative," holding to free-market economics while practicing frugality and environmental responsibility on a personal level. I also endorse strong environmental safeguards on all oil transport (such as a required bonding), but believe that a pipeline offers the best (but not perfect) balance of economy, efficiency, reliability, and safety.

Houckster, present your positions and marshal what you consider appropriate facts. But dismissing us as "hard right" or "Tea Party" (from another thread) doesn't get us anywhere.

Hemond, your rhetoric is, on occasion, also inflammatory, such as claiming that "environmentalists hate their country." Better to say that environmentalists' zeal blinds them to the country's need for energy and economic growth. I still think borsht's post of 06/21 (it's not environmentalism, but protectionism) is spot-on.

As is your post this morning, below. It's a pretty intense indictment of the liberal mindset, but your presentation of facts backs it up. You neglected 1) Warren Buffet's/Berkshire Hathaway's/Burlington Norther's massive financial stake in this, with Buffet's ties to Obama, and 2) the increased exhaust that all these diesel trains will emit.

Houckster?
Profile Pic
the1roadhog
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:11,530
Points:2,627,735
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Jun 23, 2013 9:21:27 AM

Oh hell yes.
Post a reply Back to Topics