Does it create that many jobs of reasonable quality? Does it make oil significantly cheaper for the US (as opposed to for any other consumer)? Is it so much more environmentally safe to transport by pipeline than by, say, train?
Or is the whole thing just a trading chip for environmental regulation rollback negotiations?
Seriously, what’s going on?
Does it create that many jobs of reasonable quality? Does it make oil significantly cheaper for the US (as opposed to for any other consumer)? Is it so much more environmentally safe to transport by pipeline than by, say, train?
Or is the whole thing just a trading chip for environmental regulation rollback negotiations?
Seriously, what’s going on?
First things the jobs created are solid union jobs which is why the unions were so pissed that it wasn’t passed and they were being marginalized by the green wing of the Democratic party.
I don’t know about environmentally safer, but personally I would prefer having a pipeline fire in the middle of nowhere than a tanker train blowing up in a populated area.
It will in theory reduce costs in the long term (pipeline is cheaper than train).
In theory it’s greener (assuming the oil will be pumped either way) because you won’t be using trains to haul it.
Obama is against it.
Next question?
Why does any political party support any idea? Campaign contributions and lobbying.
Does it create that many jobs of reasonable quality? Does it make oil significantly cheaper for the US (as opposed to for any other consumer)? Is it so much more environmentally safe to transport by pipeline than by, say, train?
Or is the whole thing just a trading chip for environmental regulation rollback negotiations?
Seriously, what’s going on?
First things the jobs created are solid union jobs which is why the unions were so pissed that it wasn’t passed and they were being marginalized by the green wing of the Democratic party.
I don’t know about environmentally safer, but personally I would prefer having a pipeline fire in the middle of nowhere than a tanker train blowing up in a populated area.
It will in theory reduce costs in the long term (pipeline is cheaper than train).
In theory it’s greener (assuming the oil will be pumped either way) because you won’t be using trains to haul it.
Whether or not any of these things are true, my response is truer.
Since republicans favor unrestricted automobility and are against sustainable transportation such as bicycle riding ( notice all the republican drafted anti cycling lesgislation, most recently in San Francisco), public transit and walking, then it makes sense that the GOP is going nuts over the pipe line as it’s a way to sustain an unsustainable automobile infrastructure in the sort term.
Notice that there is no republican leadership on sustainable transportation, but there is republican leadership on continuing to waste oil on inefficient transportation such as automobile commuting?
Same reason the dems have a hardon against it.
Does it create that many jobs of reasonable quality?
No
Does it make oil significantly cheaper for the US (as opposed to for any other consumer)?
Not at this time - fraking has created enough supply to take the price pressure off . Its more of a strategic consideration. If Saudi Arabia goes to hell (i.e. revolution) or China / Russia extend their sphere of influence then fraking won’t keep up and the US would be squeezed hard.
Is it so much more environmentally safe to transport by pipeline than by, say, train?
Yes. Look up the Lac Maganic incident for reference. 50+ townspeople cooked alive when an oil train derailed.
Or is the whole thing just a trading chip for environmental regulation rollback negotiations?
Possibly. Though its more environmentally friendly than to ship by rail. The resistors are NIMBY activists, and interest groups looming for a *quid pro quo *handout for not blocking it.
Canada is going to get that oil from the oil sand fields. Period. End of discussion.
So, that extracted oil can:
The alternative - send it to refineries in Texas via pipeline.
Like I said, that oil is coming out of the sand fields regardless of what happens with the pipeline. Seem really foolish and short-sighted for the US to turn down any of that oil. So, a large percentage is going to the US. Pipeline is safer and has less economic impact that road and/or rail. It will create at least 9,000 jobs for construction. That’s a nice little boost. After that, the number of long-term jobs is debatable, but, estimated at 2,000- 2,500. Some reports say 42,000 jobs, which is a pipe dream.
Since republicans favor unrestricted automobility and are against sustainable transportation such as bicycle riding ( notice all the republican drafted anti cycling lesgislation, most recently in San Francisco), public transit and walking, then it makes sense that the GOP is going nuts over the pipe line as it’s a way to sustain an unsustainable automobile infrastructure in the sort term.
Notice that there is no republican leadership on sustainable transportation, but there is republican leadership on continuing to waste oil on inefficient transportation such as automobile commuting?
Then why did Obama bail out the automotive industry? I’m confused.
It’s not just pubs, and because of bipartisan support, Keystone is one of those items that many expect Obama to sign. (of course he still has a huge voice by his side against doing so in Podesta)
It is safer, brings less reliance on the mideast, and some amount of decent jobs. Most of what you are looking for can be found here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/
Canada is going to get that oil from the oil sand fields. Period. End of discussion.
So, that extracted oil can:
The alternative - send it to refineries in Texas via pipeline.
Like I said, that oil is coming out of the sand fields regardless of what happens with the pipeline. Seem really foolish and short-sighted for the US to turn down any of that oil. So, a large percentage is going to the US. Pipeline is safer and has less economic impact that road and/or rail. It will create at least 9,000 jobs for construction. That’s a nice little boost. After that, the number of long-term jobs is debatable, but, estimated at 2,000- 2,500. Some reports say 42,000 jobs, which is a pipe dream.
This!
Also, Northern Gateway looks more and more like it’s going through, so a bunch of that oil will be getting shipped to China. It really doesn’t make sense for the US not to do this.
The issue (for both our countries) is that fracking and oil sand oil is very expensive to produce and not really viable below $80 a barrel (I think). Saudi Arabia and Russia can both provide enough price pressure with conventional oil to price us out of the market…
Oil use for automobiles is only a fraction of the total.
Plastics
Shipping
Air transport
Heating and cooling of all types
Moving water around for drinking and agriculture
Did I mention agriculture?
The list goes on and on. Like it or not our lives are totally dependent on oil. There is currently no replacement.
The environmentally ccorrect course of action is to extract as much American and Canadian oil we can. The US and Canada have in place strict environmental controls over how this is done.
We are going to use oil no matter what. Whatever we don’t get domestically we will get from Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela where environmental considerations don’t exist.
Add to that the cost to the planet to ship that oil to us and you can see that if you want lessen the impact on our planet we must expand domestic production.
Think globally. Act locally.
Drill here. Drill now.
Canada is going to get that oil from the oil sand fields. Period. End of discussion.
So, that extracted oil can:
The alternative - send it to refineries in Texas via pipeline.
Like I said, that oil is coming out of the sand fields regardless of what happens with the pipeline. Seem really foolish and short-sighted for the US to turn down any of that oil. So, a large percentage is going to the US. Pipeline is safer and has less economic impact that road and/or rail. It will create at least 9,000 jobs for construction. That’s a nice little boost. After that, the number of long-term jobs is debatable, but, estimated at 2,000- 2,500. Some reports say 42,000 jobs, which is a pipe dream.
Except it isn’t “going to the US”. It is traveling through the US to a US refinery that will sell the refined product(s) on the open market. If China pays enough, none of the refined product will go to the US.
(I see what you did there with “pipe dream.” Well played)
There are already 100 of thousands of miles of oil and gas lines in the US. Add in oil and gas gathering and you are in the low millions of miles. What’s the problem with a few more.
Oil use for automobiles is only a fraction of the total.
Yes, but a large fraction
The list goes on and on. Like it or not our lives are totally dependent on oil. There is currently no replacement.
There are replacements for some aspects of oil. Slowly more and more will become economically viable.
The environmentally ccorrect course of action is to extract as much American and Canadian oil we can. The US and Canada have in place strict environmental controls over how this is done.
Technically the environmentally correct course would be to leave as much in the ground as possible.
Add to that the cost to the planet to ship that oil to us and you can see that if you want lessen the impact on our planet we must expand domestic production.
Think globally. Act locally.
Drill here. Drill now.
Yes, but it is also short sighted to think this is a path to success in the future.
I live in the real world.
.
Go live in tent. Make sure it’s canvas.
You’re entire life depends on oil, up to and including posting on this forum. And that isn’t going to change in your lifetime.
You’re entire life depends on oil, up to and including posting on this forum.
This I know.
And that isn’t going to change in your lifetime.
I don’t believe it will be eliminated, but one way or another it is going to be greatly reduced in the coming decades. How smooth that transition will be is what worries me.