dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
317
share rss forum feed


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:3

Tar Sands and its impact on Canada.

Sad.»www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_ima···facebook

Dave



CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH
Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..

And they wanted to shove a pipeline full of that stuff through Nebraska's sandhills region that supplies water to 35 million people. Everyone wonders why the White House was againsted it? If that thing ever broke in there it could have been devistating!


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Actually, the White House is not technically against it. The only reason it got denied was because the Senate attached legislation to the payroll tax cut extension (that Obama wanted) that required him to make a decision within 60 days on the pipeline. There is a study (pending or in progress, I don't remember) that will not be favorable to the pipeline project... Transcanada and its senate friends wanted to get approval before that study was completed. That pissed Obama off and he was going to veto the bill. Instead, he approved the bill and denied the pipeline. Of course it also helps that it is an election year and he needs to rebuild his constituency. The pipeline will be reconsidered next year, and I would bet the farm it will be approved.

The 'jobs' claim for this project is a lie (as are MOST jobs claims). The majority of the oil will be refined and EXPORTED... hence no reduction in gas prices. There is really no reason anyone should be for this unless you have stock in oil companies. I have even heard excuses that we have to save Canada's environment by getting this nasty oil out of there. Would be funny if they weren't serious about it.

As a general rule:
If Business AND (House OR Senate OR President) wants something
Then it is bad for the American public.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to CaptainRR

Canada obviously disagrees with this silliness. They have said that if we don't allow for the oil pipeline to be built (with private dollars no less) they will simply sell their oil to China.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.



southla

@cox.net
reply to CXM_Splicer

You show a fundamental lack of understanding in the global oil market. Oil is a fungible commodity; it doesn’t matter where it is consumed. North America could export 100% of what we produce and still be energy independent. Your production goes into the global pool, and your consumption comes out of same. If you put in as much as you pull out, you are in fact energy independent (we don’t and are not however). To the degree that the market in oil is not artificially manipulated, any production will affect the price positively. This country is already criss crossed with many thousands of miles of pipelines and they have proven to be the safest and most cost effective method of transporting product. Even in the extreme climate of Alaska, they have proven safe. Moreover, the planners are more than willing to re-route around any sensitive area. This pipeline is a no brainer from the standpoint of energy and jobs. If you are on the other hand the type who prefers to freeze in the dark rather than spill a single drop of oil, you may get your wish sooner than you think when the inevitable happens in the Middle East.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

>You show a fundamental lack of understanding in the global oil market.

Perhaps... but I noticed you didn't suggest the same to pnh102 who suggests that China will get the oil instead of us. That also fails to explain why the US 'needs' the oil rather than Canada exporting elsewhere it or simply building refineries themselves.

Many thousands of pipelines? Hmmm, and we still have energy woes... but this ONE MORE PIPELINE will solve the problem I guess. How about we use one of the existing lines? If this oil is as important as our energy saviours claim then just take one of the currently used pipelines out of service and use it for tar sands oil. Simply build a small extension within Canada from the tar sands to the re-used line.

The jobs claim is an industry lie. The only studies that showed a substantial increase in jobs were funded by big oil. The independent study shows the jobs gained are minimal and temporary.
»www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallabori···tpdf.pdf

The fear tactics of 'freezing in the dark' are also obviously false considering the thousands of existing pipelines. And I am not quite sure what you mean by 'when the inevitable happens in the Middle East' but I would bet that it somehow involves us needing to get Ahmadinejad out of power. Please do explain the inevitable need for American imperialism.

Better solution... take all subsidies away from big oil and use them to subsidize electric cars, solar & wind farms, alternate energy projects, etc. We need to encourage the move away from fossil fuel NOW, not when it runs out.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by CXM_Splicer:

Better solution... take all subsidies away from big oil and use them to subsidize electric cars, solar & wind farms, alternate energy projects, etc. We need to encourage the move away from fossil fuel NOW, not when it runs out.

The "subsidies" of which you speak are tax breaks that the oil industry gets. Like any other business this will simply result in the price of gas going up as the cost of those taxes are passed on down the line. Do you really feel like gas is too cheap?

As for subsidizing electric cars, solar and wind farms and all that other nonsense, have you been paying attention? We've been doing this like mad for the past 3 years, even on top of what we've done before that, and what do we have to show for it? Exploding Chevy Dolts that no one wants? Wind turbines that are not even made in the US and half the time don't even work right? Even T. Boone Pickens abandoned wind when he saw it wouldn't work.

And solar? Come on. How long have we been smoking this crack pipe? Solar is never going to produce the consistent quality of electricity we need to sustain our standard of living. That's not a technological problem, it is a physics and weather problem. Look at Denmark's failed experiment with alternate energy. They ended up burning even more coal. Then of course there's the fact that just about every federally-backed solar energy company has failed. How many Solyndras need to occur before you people finally accept that even with direct cash subsidies from the taxpayer, solar just isn't going to work?

Why don't we adopt a sane energy policy instead? Focus on nuclear energy for electrical generation, expand oil production, refining and expand the availability of high MPG diesel vehicles in the US to start. I mean heck, every other country that has oil is doing this. They obviously don't buy this oil running out myth and they're making money hand over fist selling oil. Even our president wants to invest in Brasil's oil industry so how bad could oil be?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

said by pnh102:

The "subsidies" of which you speak are tax breaks that the oil industry gets. Like any other business this will simply result in the price of gas going up as the cost of those taxes are passed on down the line. Do you really feel like gas is too cheap?

As for subsidizing electric cars, solar and wind farms and all that other nonsense, have you been paying attention? We've been doing this like mad for the past 3 years, even on top of what we've done before that, and what do we have to show for it?

Yes, tax breaks or 'We won't even take the money then give it back to you... we will just let you keep it.' Is there a real difference between the two you would like to point out? True gas prices will go up if the subsidies are taken away. But who are the main consumers that use petroleum products?? Other businesses. So when I pay $3.79/gallon right down the block from me, I am paying to have the gas cheaper for industry that is using more than I am. I say, let the oil be a more expensive and let the chips fall where they may. Businesses that use the most oil will see their costs go up and products/services become prohibitively expensive. This is but another modification of the Free Market System that people have the illusion we work under.

And if you really want to talk about what we have to show for it, why don't you put it in perspective... what is the difference in funding we are talking about here?

quote:
According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010, compared with $66 billion for renewable power.

»www.time.com/time/health/article···,00.html

They also mention that a considerable amount of the 66 billion was in loans that will be paid back... not like the outright gifts that oil gets.
Expand your moderator at work


southla

@cox.net
reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Tar Sands and its impact on Canada.

You seem either incapable or unwilling to understand the economics of oil. China is not relevant to this conversation. It doesn't matter where the oil goes, it only matters that it is produced. If China (or India, or Brazil, the three countries driving the increase in demand) buys this oil, it frees up the oil they would otherwise buy. It is not a zero sum game which is something liberals can never seem to grasp.

We only have energy woes because of people like you. There is enough oil and gas IN AMERICA to meet our needs for 200 years or more. It is simply not being produced. This one pipeline is not the answer, no one thing is, but it a part of the answer.

Why export the raw oil to China if that is where you want to believe it is going, when we could export the finished product instead, doubling the economic value and employing many people in high paying jobs at the same time? Why not build a new refinery? Because your kind won’t let it happen. There has not been one built in 30 years. Moreover, the thousands of temporary jobs you scoff at will keep those thousands employed for 5 to 10 years. Your arrogance in discounting them is also typical of liberals.

Hybrids make sense. Electric cars however will never be more than a small niche player. None of your renewable energy dreams are going to ever provide more than a fraction of our needs in our lifetime, or that of our children. In fact, there is no one living today that will not depend upon fossil fuels their whole life.

If you really wanted to promote a technology to “invest in”, natural gas fueled hybrids actually have the potential to make the price of gasoline irrelevant. Our energy “problem” is by choice. If we use sensible conservation, choose to produce the oil and gas we have, use coal where it makes sense, upgrade our nuclear plants and invest in real technology instead of pipe dreams, our energy needs can be met farther into the future than we can look.

Finally, it is inevitable that the Middle East will erupt and the oil will stop flowing. Whether it is us taking out Iran, or the rabble replacing the dictators fighting among themselves, it is going to happen. We don’t actually buy that much oil from the Middle East, but again, that doesn’t matter. When it is removed from the market, we will be competing with China, Brazil, and India, not to mention the rest of the world for what remains.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

said by southla :

You seem either incapable or unwilling to understand the economics of oil. China is not relevant to this conversation.

You seem either incapable or unwilling to read the thread to which you are responding. It was not me who brought up China.

Again, the pipeline offers NOTHING except more profit for big oil... the facts are already out on the 'jobs' and, not surprisingly, the oil industry is grossly overestimating the impact. Why would they do that? If this were really a project for the American public to support why not post the realistic figures?

While it is true that renewable energy cannot (anytime soon) provide sufficient power for Industry, there are plenty of people living off the grid as we speak. If this were actually encouraged we would be able to leave the (unsubsidized) oil for the businesses that use most of it... Free Market rules.