3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline

[Chris]

Pipeline project defines folly (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/18/keystone-pipeline-350org-bill-mckibben/1929153/) argues:


* The hottest year in American history.
* An epic drought that drove up the price of food worldwide.
* Superstorm Sandy, with the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras.
* An Arctic melt so intense that NASA scientists said we faced a "planetary emergency."

Those abrupt and extreme changes in the planet's patterns demonstrate the stupidity of prolonging our addiction to fossil fuel, which is exactly what Keystone will do.

But this alarmism is not a good argument because...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mflq8whDQDU#!

1. The oil isn’t going to stay buried.
2. The pipeline isn’t a disaster waiting to happen.
3. It will help the economy.

@ 3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/17/3-reasons-to-build-the-keystone-xl-pipel)

[zelmo1234]

I have a great Idea, those that want Green energy should be allowed to pay for it and pay the difference for those that would like jobs and cheaper energy!

So for example as a green energy supporter you would get a 15% upchage on all of your taxes, and if you were not a supporter of Green energy you would get a 5% decrease to offset the cost of higher energy!

[Cigar]

So you have no problem putting a few thousand people to work, but putting a Million to work on the countries infrastructure is a problem.

[Chris]

So you have no problem putting a few thousand people to work, but putting a Million to work on the countries infrastructure is a problem.

The pipeline and refinery jobs are wealth producing.

Make work projects have no demonstrable record of producing wealth.

[KC]

The pipeline and refinery jobs are wealth producing.

Make work projects have no demonstrable record of producing wealth.

Wait, so digging ditches (and filling them back in) ≠ increased production of a highly demanded product?

[Cigar]

The pipeline and refinery jobs are wealth producing.

Make work projects have no demonstrable record of producing wealth.

Wow ... if I didn't see in writing, no one would believe it.

Shocking how Republicans are out of office.

Ever wonder how Gas Stations get their Gas or better yet, how their customers get to their Jobs to pay for the Gas they have to drive to?

[Chris]

Wait, so digging ditches (and filling them back in) ≠ increased production of a highly demanded product?

Nope. There'd have to be some sort of multiplier effect.

[Chris]

Wow ... if I didn't see in writing, no one would believe it.

Shocking how Republicans are out of office.

Ever wonder how Gas Stations get their Gas or better yet, how their customers get to their Jobs to pay for the Gas they have to drive to?


You're forgetting that that money is first taken from people who would spend it too. How is weakth generated thru redistribution?

[Cigar]

Well I don't know how your Governors and local representatives are using your money, but I can tell you the nice new roads, bridge repairs and traffic lights near me were money well spent. New business are popping up all over and property values are going up.

[nic34]

You're forgetting that that money is first taken from people who would spend it too. How is weakth generated thru redistribution?

If you don't get this, then you ARE lost.

Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

Increased infrastructure spending demonstrates a multiplier of 1.44.

Here's more fancy multiplier numbers you can spend the day disparaging under the guise of offering constructive criticism...

http://www.epi.org/publication/putting_america_back_to_work_policies_for_job_crea tion_and_stronger_economi/

[Cigar]

If you don't get this, then you ARE lost.

Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

Increased infrastructure spending demonstrates a multiplier of 1.44.

Here's more fancy multiplier numbers you can spend the day disparaging under the guise of offering constructive criticism...

http://www.epi.org/publication/putting_america_back_to_work_policies_for_job_crea tion_and_stronger_economi/

Don't bother ... it's beyond their comprehension :tongue:

[killianr1]

So you have no problem putting a few thousand people to work, but putting a Million to work on the countries infrastructure is a problem

This sounds vaguely familiar. Didn't we just pass a jobs stimulus program a couple years ago? Weren't we supposed to rebuild the infrastructure?
I do remember last week the battery company in Michigan that got $150,000,000 in stimulus monies. Investing in green energy is great!

The report indicated that they did spend $1,000,000 on salaries for people who went in and played videos all day, $800,000 is being repaid to the federal governmnet and the remaining $148,000,000 is missing in action. They produced 0 batteries in their 3 year endeavor. Nice work if you can get it. The only green energy that came out of this was the energy they produced to stash the $148,000,000.

Another perfect example of how the governmnet can manage your money better than you.

[zelmo1234]

Wow ... if I didn't see in writing, no one would believe it.

Shocking how Republicans are out of office.

Ever wonder how Gas Stations get their Gas or better yet, how their customers get to their Jobs to pay for the Gas they have to drive to?


I was not aware that roads were bing closed, is that the new scare tactic. To do public works projects, you first have to take the money out of the economy to put it back into the economy.

If you want to get more raods and bridge work done, do away with prevailing wage, which forces companies to pay a much hagher wage to there employee's, so when they are working for private industry and doing parking lots, and driveways, they are happy to be working for 15 dollars an hour, but put them on a road, and the get 28.50 in MI. So if you just change that law, employers would be albe to increase there staff by 40% and you could get a lot more work done for the same money?

What would be wrong with that Cigar.

[zelmo1234]

Well I don't know how your Governors and local representatives are using your money, but I can tell you the nice new roads, bridge repairs and traffic lights near me were money well spent. New business are popping up all over and property values are going up.

Yes it appears that things are going?????? Well really Bad in your state??? so where do you live, in a bubble?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/illinois-among-nations-wo_n_970264.html

Not good for business

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-biz-illinois-companies-leaving,0,5325079.photogallery

So they are leaving

http://www.cityrating.com/cost-of-living/illinois/

Cost of living is higher?

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST170000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment%20in%20illinois

And there are no jobs?

Sounds like a great place to live????

[Chris]

Well I don't know how your Governors and local representatives are using your money, but I can tell you the nice new roads, bridge repairs and traffic lights near me were money well spent. New business are popping up all over and property values are going up.

Can you show a relationship between those two? That might indicate a possible multiplier effect.

[Chris]

If you don't get this, then you ARE lost.

Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

Increased infrastructure spending demonstrates a multiplier of 1.44.

Here's more fancy multiplier numbers you can spend the day disparaging under the guise of offering constructive criticism...

http://www.epi.org/publication/putting_america_back_to_work_policies_for_job_crea tion_and_stronger_economi/

Drop the well poisoning as this is under Other Discussion for more serious discussion.

As for multipliers, here's what your link offers:


The fiscal multipliers used in evaluating the potential employment impact were estimated by Zandi (2010, 2011), and are consistent with those published by CBO (Elmendorf 2010; CBO 2011b).

IOW, it's based not on economic facts but CBO projections. It's guesswork, promises.



Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

With money taken from people who would spend it in other ways. Are you familiar with Bastiat's That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). It demonstrates rationally, that redistribution you advocate is at best a wash if not a loss.

[Chris]

Don't bother ... it's beyond their comprehension :tongue:

Friendly warning: This is a topic under Other Discussions for serious discussion, not mere insults. See rules @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/6236-The-Political-Forums-Revised-Rules-and-Regulations. PM a moderator if you need help understanding the rules.

[zelmo1234]

If you don't get this, then you ARE lost.

Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

Increased infrastructure spending demonstrates a multiplier of 1.44.

Here's more fancy multiplier numbers you can spend the day disparaging under the guise of offering constructive criticism...

http://www.epi.org/publication/putting_america_back_to_work_policies_for_job_crea tion_and_stronger_economi/

What you can't say is if you left that money in the private sector, what would have happened. For Example, because of new taxes and Obamacare, I can not arrord to invest in new multi unit housing and new developments in this country

?so this meanst that several of the crews that I usually hire, are un, or under employed. because there is no new housing, and apartments, the rents and prices are higher, so this takes disposable income away from the poor and middle class.

Because I have turned to buying forclosures and tax reposessions, the prices of these have gone higher making it impossible for the middle class to take advantage of very inexpensive housing.

Because of this, the local merchants need less people because the crews are not buying lunch and breakfast and gas ect in these communities. So these workers go and get a job from the govenrment that took the taxes from me? Now you have switcher that tax base to washigton instead of your local area, You have switched that to the state and they have workers that help to redistribute the money and then what is left, about 40 cents on the dolar makes it back to the community.

So is it really a multiplyer of 1.44? Not really it takes money that should ahve been 100% local and spreads it out with little making it back to the streets.

[nic34]

sorry zel, can't engage you here...rulez and all....

We DO know that when people have a job they spend most of what they make on goods and services... so where does everybody think all that money goes....?????

[Chris]

sorry zel, can't engage you here...rulez and all....

But even if we DO know that when people have a job they spend most of what they make on goods and services... so where does everybody think all that money goes....?????

You can't engage with off-topic insults like "If you don't get this, then you ARE lost." But you can certainly engage with rational arguments.

As to your question why do you ignore where the money comes from? If nothing else it costs in terms of administrative costs to redistribute the money from where it comes from to where it goes. Next you have to demonstrate that the where it goes is more beneficial than where it would have gone if left in the hands of those it's taken from. You don't demonstrate that by referring to CBO projections, you need facts, and those are hard to come by.

[zelmo1234]

sorry zel, can't engage you here...rulez and all....

But even if we DO know that when people have a job they spend most of what they make on goods and services... so where does everybody think all that money goes....?????

Ahhhh! the rules be D&%#(! we will forge ahead with our conversation! :rulez:


When you spend money through the government, the government eats up more than half of the money. And it first must be taken out of the economy.

So what I was trying to say in a round about way is it is a terrible Idea to stimulate the economy through government, because you loose half or it through distribution costs.

That is why stimulis through tax policy is so effective, there are not costs to not collecting something

[Chris]

Drop the well poisoning as this is under Other Discussion for more serious discussion.

As for multipliers, here's what your link offers:



IOW, it's based not on economic facts but CBO projections. It's guesswork, promises.




With money taken from people who would spend it in other ways. Are you familiar with Bastiat's That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). It demonstrates rationally, that redistribution you advocate is at best a wash if not a loss.

Correction, it's based on Moody Analytics software models fed CBO predictions that have no basis in real data. This is worse than climate models predicting the horrors of extreme global warming, er, cooling, er, change. In short it's a wild-assed guess, a SWAG.

[KC]

If you don't get this, then you ARE lost.

Putting people to work building/rebuilding infrastructure creates revenue 2 ways, by folks paying sales and income taxes and by putting other people to work.

Increased infrastructure spending demonstrates a multiplier of 1.44.

Here's more fancy multiplier numbers you can spend the day disparaging under the guise of offering constructive criticism...

http://www.epi.org/publication/putting_america_back_to_work_policies_for_job_crea tion_and_stronger_economi/

How high the multiplier is varies widely depending on who is doing the research. It's nothing more than confirmation bias. I would be shocked if there is a multiplier above 1.

[nic34]

Then where does all that money go being spent by the workers....????

[roadmaster]

Get it away from the water sources. I am for this project but don't still like it's route. I know the history of this company and it's not good. We need the jobs but lets do it responsible.

[Chris]

Then where does all that money go being spent by the workers....????

But, given it would have been spent by those government takes it from, does the redistribution result in the generation of wealth? So far you've produced imaginary multipliers numbers. If you can't show benefit, what reason is there to do it?

[Chris]

Get it away from the water sources. I am for this project but don't still like it's route. I know the history of this company and it's not good. We need the jobs but lets do it responsible.

I thought Keystone agreed at some point to reroute.

[zelmo1234]

Then where does all that money go being spent by the workers....????

You mean the money that was taken from business so they could not hire workers and and those workers could not spend money?

It is a net negative for almost everyone, except Stae Capitals and DC

[Morningstar]

Well I don't know how your Governors and local representatives are using your money, but I can tell you the nice new roads, bridge repairs and traffic lights near me were money well spent. New business are popping up all over and property values are going up.

But you could have gotten three times the infrastructure for the same price. That's what really sucks.

[KC]

Then where does all that money go being spent by the workers....????

You are assuming that stimulus spending on infrastructure leads to new hires. In many cases stimulus does not result in the new hire of unemployed workers, but of already employed workers.

[Morningstar]

I've worked on a number of stimulus projects. They are a joke. But hey, I'm not crazy enough to turn down $60 an hour when I normally make less than half of that!

[roadmaster]

I thought Keystone agreed at some point to reroute.

They did but not far enough. Just on the outskirts in which a leak would still hurt the water system. They are just not going over it now. They should move it at least a mile away to put peoples minds at rest. Most of the pipe has already been put down in the southern states except for one owner that I know of and Canada is suing her.

[nic34]

You are assuming that stimulus spending on infrastructure leads to new hires. In many cases stimulus does not result in the new hire of unemployed workers, but of already employed workers.

It's 'demand creation'. And the easiest way to create demand is to get more money into the hands of people who will spend it. And lower income people have more unmet needs that can be met by consumption than upper income folks. You have to "prime the pump" especially after a recession to get back to full employment.

If there is only enough stimulus spending on infrastructure to employ current workers, that is only doing maintenence... there are many engineers, designers, contractors and municipal workers here just waiting for the state and federal funding to begin water projects all over the SW. That's just one industry. What are we waiting for? The Boehner congress?

[Chris]

You mean the money that was taken from business so they could not hire workers and and those workers could not spend money?

It is a net negative for almost everyone, except Stae Capitals and DC

I would argue that on the face of it it is a net negative, and not just for costs associated with redistribution.

Those from whom the money was taken, your average everyday American, who does his or her part to generate wealth, is much more in turn with the knowledge through prices to make better decisons how to spend that money. Central planners in government are out of touch and incapable of accessing such dispersed and dynamic knowledge and are thereby less able to pick winners and losers, and generally don't even try as they hand out the money or taxes or regulations as favors to special interests who will fill campaign coffers.

[Chris]

They did but not far enough. Just on the outskirts in which a leak would still hurt the water system. They are just not going over it now. They should move it at least a mile away to put peoples minds at rest. Most of the pipe has already been put down in the southern states except for one owner that I know of and Canada is suing her.

Then government--Obama--should push for that, further relocation away from the aquifer. Much better than stonewalling it, when Canada will just sell it to China anyway.

[Chris]

It's 'demand creation'. And the easiest way to create demand is to get more money into the hands of people who will spend it. And lower income people have more unmet needs that can be met by consumption than upper income folks. You have to "prime the pump" especially after a recession to get back to full employment.

If there is only enough stimulus spending on infrastructure to employ current workers, that is only doing maintenence... there are many engineers, designers, contractors and municipal workers here just waiting for the state and federal funding to begin water projects all over the SW. That's just one industry. What are we waiting for? The Boehner congress?

IOW, trickle up, a Keynesian approach as bad as Keynesian trickle down.

[Cigar]

I've worked on a number of stimulus projects. They are a joke. But hey, I'm not crazy enough to turn down $60 an hour when I normally make less than half of that!

You probably should elect a better Governor who knows the value of your money.

[Morningstar]

You probably should elect a better Governor who knows the value of your money.

We did.

[roadmaster]

Then government--Obama--should push for that, further relocation away from the aquifer. Much better than stonewalling it, when Canada will just sell it to China anyway.

Yes it won't be sold here. China steals all our technology so why not give them this. You are correct Obama should push for that. In Canada there is going to be fights because it's going in the middle of First Nations, in fact most of the pipe is in Native American land here.

[Chris]

Yes it won't be sold here. China steals all our technology so why not give them this. You are correct Obama should push for that. In Canada there is going to be fights because it's going in the middle of First Nations, in fact most of the pipe is in Native American land here.

At least we're talking the topic, environmental issues. :-)

[nic34]

IOW, trickle up, a Keynesian approach as bad as Keynesian trickle down.

So where is a "libertarian" model working?

[Morningstar]

So where is a "libertarian" model working?

Seems to work just fine with illicit drugs...

[nic34]

Yes it won't be sold here. China steals all our technology so why not give them this. You are correct Obama should push for that. In Canada there is going to be fights because it's going in the middle of First Nations, in fact most of the pipe is in Native American land here.

As always it comes down to NIMBY. Why else do you think they couldn't route it toward beautiful Vancouver just a fraction of the distance?

It's why Canadians want to send it to the Texas Gulf, the armpit of the country, and take the profits...

BTW, do we get a subsidy check like the citizens of Alaska do?

:thumbsup20:

[Alif Qadr]

Wow ... if I didn't see in writing, no one would believe it.

Shocking how Republicans are out of office.

Ever wonder how Gas Stations get their Gas or better yet, how their customers get to their Jobs to pay for the Gas they have to drive to?


Cigar, either you are extremely slow on the uptake of additional information, or you just like playing the back end of a mule.
Gas stations are built because they will generate revenue in the form of sales of petroleum and attached products, as well as generate revenue for local, county, state and federal coffers.

[roadmaster]

Why else do you think they couldn't route it toward beautiful Vancouver just a fraction of the distance?
I wouldn't want it in my backyard either. The tribes have signed it just the ones they got to sign it don't live in that area. Harper didn't need but so many signatures and he got them from people that won't be affected. Idle no more won't win when it gets passed. Just like the ones they are suing here. But yes they will get their checks and be promised jobs just like the coal industry that won't hire them, only to bring in their own workers.

[Alif Qadr]

This sounds vaguely familiar. Didn't we just pass a jobs stimulus program a couple years ago? Weren't we supposed to rebuild the infrastructure?
I do remember last week the battery company in Michigan that got $150,000,000 in stimulus monies. Investing in green energy is great!

The report indicated that they did spend $1,000,000 on salaries for people who went in and played videos all day, $800,000 is being repaid to the federal governmnet and the remaining $148,000,000 is missing in action. They produced 0 batteries in their 3 year endeavor. Nice work if you can get it. The only green energy that came out of this was the energy they produced to stash the $148,000,000.

Another perfect example of how the government can manage your money better than you.
kilianr1,
Nope, all we need are more governmental promises on technology that takes more revenue to build and operate than said technologies will ever produce or reprodcue. Monies invested in so-called green economic ventures are fine a well when they are in private hands, but disastrous in government hands.

[roadmaster]

What people forget is that most First Nations can't even drink their water now. Environmentally this company has hurt their water supply. This company said last year that they didn't expect this many spills. They don't replace old pipe. No company can prevent all spills but this one is negligent. We need to make sure here that they are on the ball and maintain the pipe and move it away from any trouble. Also, our people get the jobs.

[Chris]

So where is a "libertarian" model working?

Where is any model working? That's the libertarian point, man-designed and -made models don't work.

[Chris]

As always it comes down to NIMBY. Why else do you think they couldn't route it toward beautiful Vancouver just a fraction of the distance?

It's why Canadians want to send it to the Texas Gulf, the armpit of the country, and take the profits...

BTW, do we get a subsidy check like the citizens of Alaska do?

:thumbsup20:

Americans would profit building and maintaining the pipeline and building and running the refinery. You speak of make-work jobs but ignore wealth-generating ones.

[Chris]

kilianr1,
Nope, all we need are more governmental promises on technology that takes more revenue to build and operate than said technologies will ever produce or reprodcue. Monies invested in so-called green economic ventures are fine a well when they are in private hands, but disastrous in government hands.


Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)


@ List: 36 Of Obama’s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures (http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/10/20/list-36-obama-s-taxpayer-funded-green-energy-failures#ixzz2LNo3eMP8)

And I'm sure someone could find a long list of Bush failures.

[nic34]

"Repubs" discount government jobs because they don’t “produce revenue,” an argument that’s as dumb as the “job creation” myth.

Government workers save businesses when they catch on fire, arrest criminals who steal from them, teach their workforce how to read and write, provide health care for those workers who can’t afford it themselves, protect them from having their product ideas stolen, protect their interests overseas, build the roads and transit systems that carry workers (and customers) to them…you get the idea...wealth "protection"...

[Chris]

"Repubs" discount government jobs because they don’t “produce revenue,” an argument that’s as dumb as the “job creation” myth.

Government workers save businesses when they catch on fire, arrest criminals who steal from them, teach their workforce how to read and write, provide health care for those workers who can’t afford it themselves, protect them from having their product ideas stolen, protect their interests overseas, build the roads and transit systems that carry workers (and customers) to them…you get the idea...wealth "protection"...

Not familiar with the repub argument.

I don't see anyone here arguing government jobs aren't useful, or even, in case, perhaps needed--arguable of course.

The point here is that make-work, demand-side, trickle-up, so-called stimulus jobs produce no demonstrable multiplier effect, i.e., generate no wealth.

[zelmo1234]

It's 'demand creation'. And the easiest way to create demand is to get more money into the hands of people who will spend it. And lower income people have more unmet needs that can be met by consumption than upper income folks. You have to "prime the pump" especially after a recession to get back to full employment.

If there is only enough stimulus spending on infrastructure to employ current workers, that is only doing maintenence... there are many engineers, designers, contractors and municipal workers here just waiting for the state and federal funding to begin water projects all over the SW. That's just one industry. What are we waiting for? The Boehner congress?

Or we could lift the ban on drilling off shoe, and in Anwar, and on public lands, beging the conversion of big rigs to natural gas, and this would drop energy prices dramaticaly and that would not only create jobs without increaseing the debt, but would give the poor and middle class more disposable income because they are not putting it into there tanks and heating ther homes.

[Dr. Who]

Pipeline project defines folly (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/18/keystone-pipeline-350org-bill-mckibben/1929153/) argues:



But this alarmism is not a good argument because...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mflq8whDQDU#!

1. The oil isn’t going to stay buried.
2. The pipeline isn’t a disaster waiting to happen.
3. It will help the economy.

@ 3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/17/3-reasons-to-build-the-keystone-xl-pipel)
I don't know the details of the deal between the US Government and Transcanada Pipeline, but environmental issues aside, the tar sands is one of the costliest in the world to develop. Whenever oil prices tumble, it is vulnerable. If crude prices drop too low, it's not even worth the expense of extracting the crude - minimally $60/barrel to break even on the more developed projects. If there is any breakthrough in green energy that affects crude oil prices, there will be a really huge white elephant stretching from Canada to Texas.

[zelmo1234]

I don't know the details of the deal between the US Government and Transcanada Pipeline, but environmental issues aside, the tar sands is one of the costliest in the world to develop. Whenever oil prices tumble, it is vulnerable. If crude prices drop too low, it's not even worth the expense of extracting the crude - minimally $60/barrel to break even on the more developed projects. If there is any breakthrough in green energy that affects crude oil prices, there will be a really huge white elephant stretching from Canada to Texas.

^0 dollars a barrel get the price at the pump to about 2.25 a gallon? Imagine the stimulis that surrounds that, and as far a green energy Solar is 3 times the price of natural gas, and Wind is 2 times the price, it is unlikely that they will get to the point of being the cheap alternative in my lifetime.

it is more likely that if the next President is conservative, it will fall of the face of the earth for another decade or two like it did when Carter tried to force it on the population!

[Dr. Who]

^0 dollars a barrel get the price at the pump to about 2.25 a gallon? Imagine the stimulis that surrounds that, and as far a green energy Solar is 3 times the price of natural gas, and Wind is 2 times the price, it is unlikely that they will get to the point of being the cheap alternative in my lifetime.

it is more likely that if the next President is conservative, it will fall of the face of the earth for another decade or two like it did when Carter tried to force it on the population!
Yeah, that's why I mentioned there would have to be a breakthrough in green energy i.e. not likely solar or wind or any kind of fuel made from plants, but something completely new, more like developments in Bloom Energy or OverUnity etc.

[Chris]

I don't know the details of the deal between the US Government and Transcanada Pipeline, but environmental issues aside, the tar sands is one of the costliest in the world to develop. Whenever oil prices tumble, it is vulnerable. If crude prices drop too low, it's not even worth the expense of extracting the crude - minimally $60/barrel to break even on the more developed projects. If there is any breakthrough in green energy that affects crude oil prices, there will be a really huge white elephant stretching from Canada to Texas.

Yet extraction is worth it, has been for some time, Alberta is getting rich from it, and we're expanding:

http://i.snag.gy/HZoUg.jpg

@ A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark)

Let us know when "green" sells.

[Guerilla]

Shouldn't we be more focused on expanding green industry rather than the oil industry. With keystone xl, we will be sending oil to Europe and latin America. Latin America isn't very developed, and in my opinion, we shouldn't be creating a dependency on oil in their. With latin America not very industrialized, their is an opportunity for them to create completely green industry. The point is, why are we trying to prop up the oil industry? We are only prolonging the wait for inevitable rise of green industry, and a greener earth.

[Dr. Who]

Yet extraction is worth it, has been for some time, Alberta is getting rich from it, and we're expanding:

http://i.snag.gy/HZoUg.jpg

@ A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark)

Let us know when "green" sells.

Well it has been in the news that the tar patch is having a few issues of late: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/crude-glut-price-plunge-put-oil-sands-projects-at-risk/article4230759/

[zelmo1234]

People in poor countries can't afford green energy!

[Dr. Who]

Shouldn't we be more focused on expanding green industry rather than the oil industry. With keystone xl, we will be sending oil to Europe and latin America. Latin America isn't very developed, and in my opinion, we shouldn't be creating a dependency on oil in their. With latin America not very industrialized, their is an opportunity for them to create completely green industry. The point is, why are we trying to prop up the oil industry? We are only prolonging the wait for inevitable rise of green industry, and a greener earth.
Venezuela has plenty of oil being the fifth largest oil exporting country in the world with the largest reserves of heavy crude oil at an estimated 99.4 billion barrels.

[Chris]

Well it has been in the news that the tar patch is having a few issues of late: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/crude-glut-price-plunge-put-oil-sands-projects-at-risk/article4230759/

Market issues. But consider, it's a company, a corporation, that might lose, not a government losing all our money on hundreds of millions or more of green energy failures (see post #50).

[Guerilla]

People in poor countries can't afford green energy!

That is irrelevant. The point is why can't we let the oil industry die, to give rise to the green industry, which is inevitable. Oil is slowly getting more expensive which allows a nice slow transition to green energy. Why do we keep prolonging the demise of oil industry, we are going to have to deal with it eventually.

[zelmo1234]

That is irrelevant. The point is why can't we let the oil industry die, to give rise to the green industry, which is inevitable. Oil is slowly getting more expensive which allows a nice slow transition to green energy. Why do we keep prolonging the demise of oil industry, we are going to have to deal with it eventually.

It is getting more expensive by design. I say let those that wont to use Green energy use it, but many in this country can't afford 4.00 gas and 3.80 for heating oil and propane? Manufactures can't afford high electric bills.

Like I said, I am totally OK as ling as those that want green energy subsidise those of us the want cheap energy. I proposed a 15% tax increas for those that consider the green lifestyle what hey want, and a 5% tax cut for those that do not! This owuld make it easier to afford the higher prices.

[Chris]

That is irrelevant. The point is why can't we let the oil industry die, to give rise to the green industry, which is inevitable. Oil is slowly getting more expensive which allows a nice slow transition to green energy. Why do we keep prolonging the demise of oil industry, we are going to have to deal with it eventually.

Actually oil is not getting more expensive, not on the global market, not since the 60s. It is getting more expensive here because of government-driven inflation.

[Dr. Who]

Market issues. But consider, it's a company, a corporation, that might lose, not a government losing all our money on hundreds of millions or more of green energy failures (see post #50).
True, but just saying there will be several thousand miles of pipeline to dismantle if the price for crude tanks for any prolonged period of time.

[Guerilla]

Venezuela has plenty of oil being the fifth largest oil exporting country in the world with the largest reserves of heavy crude oil at an estimated 99.4 billion barrels.

But as of recently, their exports have been declining. As a matter of fact, they have been having to purchase oil from Russia to cover some of their exports. Venezuela: Another perfect example of the opportunity for slow transition to green energy

[Chris]

True, but just saying there will be several thousand miles of pipeline to dismantle if the price for crude tanks for any prolonged period of time.

If. Right now their is demand. Peak oil is myth. Oil profits will in the end drive research into green alternatives.

[Chloe]

People in poor countries can't afford green energy!

So then if they can't then nobody should???

[Guerilla]

It is getting more expensive by design. I say let those that wont to use Green energy use it, but many in this country can't afford 4.00 gas and 3.80 for heating oil and propane? Manufactures can't afford high electric bills.

Like I said, I am totally OK as ling as those that want green energy subsidise those of us the want cheap energy. I proposed a 15% tax increas for those that consider the green lifestyle what hey want, and a 5% tax cut for those that do not! This owuld make it easier to afford the higher prices.

Well I personally don't like to put money over the earth. Just because it is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's not better; it also doesn't mean that we can't make it work, or come up with an idea, to make it affordable.

[nic34]

Well I personally don't like to put money over the earth. Just because it is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's not better; it also doesn't mean that we can't make it work, or come up with an idea, to make it affordable.

Some here believe an endeavour is never worth anything unless it can make a profit... and they are shortsighted.

[nic34]

People in poor countries can't afford green energy!

But they can afford gasoline burning cars?

[Chris]

Well I personally don't like to put money over the earth. Just because it is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's not better; it also doesn't mean that we can't make it work, or come up with an idea, to make it affordable.

Then you should purchase green. And you can do the research and marketing etc to make it more affordable. Meanwhile, consumers will buy what they value.

[Chris]

Some here believe an endeavour is never worth anything unless it can make a profit... and they are shortsighted.

And some here don't want to be bothered with how these endeavors are going to be paid for. That is short sighted. It's unsustainable.

[roadmaster]

Upgrading the oil from the oil sands creates carcinogenic toxins that are now being deposited in lakes as far as 90 kilometers from the upgraders near Fort McMurray. We are not talking about oil like we drill off our land. This is dirty and TransCanada has put more money into advertising that it's safe than any company I have seen. Put it near water sources in the US and it could be a disaster. Many lakes and streams in Canada has yet to be cleaned up and some may never be. Everyone wants jobs and I am not an environmentalist but we don't make land or water. It was greed that even thought about putting it over the water to cut cost and it's still greed not to take it away from it.

[Morningstar]

Shouldn't we be more focused on expanding green industry rather than the oil industry.

Not if we want to maintain or increase our quality of life...

[Morningstar]

That is irrelevant. The point is why can't we let the oil industry die, to give rise to the green industry, which is inevitable. Oil is slowly getting more expensive which allows a nice slow transition to green energy. Why do we keep prolonging the demise of oil industry, we are going to have to deal with it eventually.

We could have cheap and plentiful oil for centuries, if we wanted to.

There is more oil in the earth than you can possibly fathom.

[Morningstar]

True, but just saying there will be several thousand miles of pipeline to dismantle if the price for crude tanks for any prolonged period of time.

Why would we have to dismantle it?

[Morningstar]

So then if they can't then nobody should???

Have you purchased a wind turbine?

[Morningstar]

Well I personally don't like to put money over the earth. Just because it is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's not better; it also doesn't mean that we can't make it work, or come up with an idea, to make it affordable.
Green energy is a joke, as of now. An expensive, inefficient, joke.

The earth will be fine. Turns out that oil comes from the earth, too. It's not poison.

And, by the way, if you aren't powering your home and your vehicle and your life on green energy, than you ARE "putting money over the earth".

It's other people's money that you like to throw around, not your own. And that's criminal, Jack!

[Morningstar]

Some here believe an endeavour is never worth anything unless it can make a profit... and they are shortsighted.

Have you gone green?

I see a hell of a lot of hippies at the gas pumps...

[Chloe]

Green energy is a joke, as of now. An expensive, inefficient, joke.

The earth will be fine. Turns out that oil comes from the earth, too. It's not poison.

And, by the way, if you aren't powering your home and your vehicle and your life on green energy, than you ARE "putting money over the earth".

It's other people's money that you like to throw around, not your own. And that's criminal, Jack!


Its also about doing what you can to make a difference too. Every bit helps. For example my parents have solar panels on our roof, we have a rain catch in the backyard to store excess rain water just in case, I drive a Prius that I got a few years ago for my 16th birthday, my parents drive hybrid versions of their vehicles, we recycle as much as possible, I have a small garden in our backyard so that i can grow some of my own food, among others things. Just having a wind turbine isn't enough it takes a sincere effort to do what ever you can to reduce your own impact. If enough people do it then it can become global.

[Morningstar]

Its also about doing what you can to make a difference too. Every bit helps. For example my parents have solar panels on our roof, we have a rain catch in the backyard to store excess rain water just in case, I drive a Prius that I got a few years ago for my 16th birthday, my parents drive hybrid versions of their vehicles, we recycle as much as possible, I have a small garden in our backyard so that i can grow some of my own food, among others things. Just having a wind turbine isn't enough it takes a sincere effort to do what ever you can to reduce your own impact. If enough people do it then it can become global.

Sure. But I have no interest in it, and I don't appreciate being forced to pay more for the types of energy I prefer, or being taxed to subsidize failed concepts.

[Chris]

Its also about doing what you can to make a difference too. Every bit helps.

That I can buy into.

My new truck has an Ecoboost engine, does that count?

I bought one of those water purifying pitchers to use for water instead of plastic bottles.

I would also argue for ending subsidies for fossil fuels along with stimuli to failed greens. Level the playing field as liberals often say.

[Dr. Who]

Why would we have to dismantle it?

If the pipeline falls into disuse, it will contain major toxic residue, it will rust, collect water through the holes in the pipeline and deposit toxins onto the land. If you're a farmer, you wouldn't want your livestock grazing anywhere near it. You wouldn't want the toxins draining into the water table. If it's running through environmentally sensitive areas, it will again present a problem to wildlife.

[Morningstar]

If the pipeline falls into disuse, it will contain major toxic residue, it will rust, collect water through the holes in the pipeline and deposit toxins onto the land. If you're a farmer, you wouldn't want your livestock grazing anywhere near it. You wouldn't want the toxins draining into the water table. If it's running through environmentally sensitive areas, it will again present a problem to wildlife.

At what depth will the pipeline be interred? How dangerous is it?

You do know that we still expel pure human shit, in massive quantities, into rivers, yes?

[Morningstar]

I think some of you have an exaggerated sense of the dangers of petroleum.

I do construction work, and it is not rare to dig up huge amounts of dumped/spilled/leaked oil...

It's there. Right now. And we are living longer than ever in human history.

[zelmo1234]

But they can afford gasoline burning cars?

Most can't even afford to have electricity in there home. And now some here are suggesting that we make it harder for them to get ahead!

Not to mention that in order for them to have it be reliable, they need the fossil fuels source as well.

So to force green nergy on those that can't afford it is pretty cruel in my opnion!

[Dr. Who]

If the pipeline falls into disuse, it will contain major toxic residue, it will rust, collect water through the holes in the pipeline and deposit toxins onto the land. If you're a farmer, you wouldn't want your livestock grazing anywhere near it. You wouldn't want the toxins draining into the water table. If it's running through environmentally sensitive areas, it will again present a problem to wildlife.
For those who think pipelines are a wonderful way to transport oil, consider this, if there is a leak, and there will be, because there will be too many miles of pipeline to properly monitor, and thousands of gallons of crude spill on a property, it can't be cleaned up in one year, it takes many years. Wells are drilled everywhere to collect and test for toxins. Your property is covered with heavy equipment removing the soil. If your land is your source of income, better hope the owner of the pipeline pays you in a timely way, nevermind the inconvenience, because you will be living on a construction site for the foreseeable future. The water table is contaminated and any nearby waterways will be contaminated. They will be dredging the rivers and streams. You will have to have your water trucked in indefinitely. You won't want your children to go anywhere near open water because it will be toxic. Your land will be worthless until it is cleaned, so you won't be able to move. Even one fuel truck carrying oil that has an accident and spills it's load can create a toxic spill that takes years to clear, nevermind a pipeline that starts dumping thousands of gallons of crude oil onto aproperty. The ostensible cost will be borne by the pipeline owners, but the cost to the land owner can never be properly compensated. Your decision to allow a pipeline on your property will also affect neighboring properties. Your neighbors will ultimately look at you like you are the scum that destroyed their lifestyle and ruined their properties. Keep in mind that you are dealing with an oil company. They can keep you in court until you are desperate and will sell your land to them at a discount.

[Morningstar]

For those who think pipelines are a wonderful way to transport oil, consider this, if there is a leak, and there will be, because there will be too many miles of pipeline to properly monitor, and thousands of gallons of crude spill on a property, it can't be cleaned up in one year, it takes many years. Wells are drilled everywhere to collect and test for toxins. Your property is covered with heavy equipment removing the soil. If your land is your source of income, better hope the owner of the pipeline pays you in a timely way, nevermind the inconvenience, because you will be living on a construction site for the foreseeable future. The water table is contaminated and any nearby waterways will be contaminated. They will be dredging the rivers and streams. You will have to have your water trucked in indefinitely. You won't want your children to go anywhere near open water because it will be toxic. Your land will be worthless until it is cleaned, so you won't be able to move. Even one fuel truck carrying oil that has an accident and spills it's load can create a toxic spill that takes years to clear, nevermind a pipeline that starts dumping thousands of gallons of crude oil onto aproperty. The ostensible cost will be borne by the pipeline owners, but the cost to the land owner can never be properly compensated. Your decision to allow a pipeline on your property will also affect neighboring properties. Your neighbors will ultimately look at you like you are the scum that destroyed their lifestyle and ruined their properties. Keep in mind that you are dealing with an oil company. They can keep you in court until you are desperate and will sell your land to them at a discount.

You sound an awful lot like the goofballs who told me that the Gulf of Mexico was dead a few years ago. I laughed in their faces.

[Dr. Who]

You sound an awful lot like the goofballs who told me that the Gulf of Mexico was dead a few years ago. I laughed in their faces.
This is what I do for a living. I work for one of the largest reinsurers in the world. These are the kinds of claims I have dealt with for more years than I care to say. I have dealt with many Transcanada Pipleline claims. I am not spewing rhetoric. This is really what happens.

[Morningstar]

This is what I do for a living. I work for one of the largest reinsurers in the world. These are the kinds of claims I have dealt with for more years than I care to say. I have dealt with many Transcanada Pipleline claims. I am not spewing rhetoric. This is really what happens.

Then you understand that pipeline is the safest form of transport of petroleum products.

[Dr. Who]

At what depth will the pipeline be interred? How dangerous is it?

You do know that we still expel pure human shit, in massive quantities, into rivers, yes?


A. The pipelines are above ground. B. Human shit is not full of the chemical toxins which bitumen contains.

[Dr. Who]

Then you understand that pipeline is the safest form of transport of petroleum products.

Safe is a relative term. Pipelines corrode from the inside out - just like home oil fuel tanks. You don't know that there is a problem until they spring a leak. The more remote the leak location, the more disasterous the spill, because it is not discovered until thousands of gallons have spilled.

[Morningstar]

A. The pipelines are above ground.

Minimum depth is 4 feet below ground.

[Morningstar]

Safe is a relative term. Pipelines corrode from the inside out - just like home oil fuel tanks. You don't know that there is a problem until they spring a leak. The more remote the leak location, the more disasterous the spill, because it is not discovered until thousands of gallons have spilled.

It's totally worth it.

[Morningstar]

I find it insane to believe that oil companies only care about profits, and then also believe that they would build a faulty pipeline that could spill their profitable product all over creation and open themselves up to civil lawsuits and criminal penalties...

It's utter bullshit.

[Dr. Who]

Minimum depth is 4 feet below ground.

Not all below ground. Below ground is worse, because then you really can't tell if there is a small leak - it wouldn't be discovered until the water table is completely contaminated. Below ground the only possible checks are above ground monitoring stations. All they monitor is pressure. If the leak is small, how will they detect a leak until the pipeline blows a big hole. Anywhere the pipeline is traveling in mountainous conditions, such as the Rockies or along the coast where there are underground rock formations, it will be above ground. No one will be blasting miles of trenches in the ground. The Alaska pipeline is basically above ground.

[Dr. Who]

I find it insane to believe that oil companies only care about profits, and then also believe that they would build a faulty pipeline that could spill their profitable product all over creation and open themselves up to civil lawsuits and criminal penalties...

It's utter bullshit.

The pipeline, when built is not "faulty". It is the sheer impossibility of truly monitoring it properly. Small leaks don't show up as glitches in the monitoring stations. Once it blows a big hole, it is already too late. How often to municipal water pipes break? Pipes corrode.

[Morningstar]

Not all below ground. Below ground is worse, because then you really can't tell if there is a small leak - it wouldn't be discovered until the water table is completely contaminated. Below ground the only possible checks are above ground monitoring stations. All they monitor is pressure. If the leak is small, how will they detect a leak until the pipeline blows a big hole. Anywhere the pipeline is traveling in mountainous conditions, such as the Rockies or along the coast where there are underground rock formations, it will be above ground. No one will be blasting miles of trenches in the ground. The Alaska pipeline is basically above ground.

We're not talking about the Alaska Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is below ground. Most of it is already built.

[Dr. Who]

I find it insane to believe that oil companies only care about profits, and then also believe that they would build a faulty pipeline that could spill their profitable product all over creation and open themselves up to civil lawsuits and criminal penalties...

It's utter bullshit.

When your bottom line is in the billions of dollars, what is a few millions in law suits, especially when it's not your money, it is insurance company money.

[Morningstar]

The pipeline, when built is not "faulty". It is the sheer impossibility of truly monitoring it properly. Small leaks don't show up as glitches in the monitoring stations. Once it blows a big hole, it is already too late. How often to municipal water pipes break? Pipes corrode.

So what? The reward is worth the risk.

[Dr. Who]

So what? The reward is worth the risk.
Hey, it's not on your property, right?

[Morningstar]

Hey, it's not on your property, right?

Where does your fuel come from? Mine comes by pipeline, out of Philadelphia.

Some of the pumps failed, after Hurricane Sandy, and we had a major shortage here.

We already have thousands upon thousands of pipelines, crissscrossing the nation, and you are worried about this one?

Get outta here. You're full of shit.

[Dr. Who]

Where does your fuel come from? Mine comes by pipeline, out of Philadelphia.

Some of the pumps failed, after Hurricane Sandy, and we had a major shortage here.

We already have thousands upon thousands of pipelines, crissscrossing the nation, and you are worried about this one?

Get outta here. You're full of shit.
Because I know TCPIP's track record.

[roadmaster]

Where does your fuel come from? Mine comes by pipeline, out of Philadelphia.

Some of the pumps failed, after Hurricane Sandy, and we had a major shortage here.

We already have thousands upon thousands of pipelines, crissscrossing the nation, and you are worried about this one?

Get outta here. You're full of shit.
Yes we do have many but not mostly from the tar sands.

[roadmaster]

Because I know TCPIP's track record.
I have followed them also. Am sure you know more but we can't afford to be irresponsible here. Always been for drilling off our coast with American companies that have an interest and live there. People tend to care more if it's in their backyard.

[Chris]

Report May Ease Path for New Pipeline (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/us/us-report-sees-no-environmental-bar-to-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0):


The State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline on Friday that makes no recommendation about whether the project should be built but presents no conclusive environmental reason it should not be.

The 2,000-page document also makes no statement on whether the pipeline is in the United States’ economic and energy interests, a determination to be made later this year by President Obama.

But it will certainly add a new element to the already robust climate change and energy debate around the $7 billion proposed project. The new report does not make any policy recommendations, but its conclusion that the environmental and climate change impacts are manageable could provide Mr. Obama political cover if he decides to approve the pipeline....

[KC]

Report May Ease Path for New Pipeline (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/us/us-report-sees-no-environmental-bar-to-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0):

I do not understand why the federal government is so involved in this.

[Chris]

I do not understand why the federal government is so involved in this.

Government today is not so much about governing as politicking. Look at Obama (or any other politician the last decades) and his governing by campaigning all the time.