Let's get that pipeline built!

An opinion on the long running arguments of both sides on the pipeline, I have to agree with this guy. http://www.elgincourier.com/opinion/article_2b7a5900-c13b-11e4-b28a-132b3f8f96fa.html

"There’s a U.S. State Department review of the project expected to be released in the coming months that may change things. However, after listening to the exact same arguments for more than seven years now, I don’t think anyone is going to be swayed one way or another unless someone, on either side, comes up with a better argument."
 

My last post became too long so I start this one about IPCC and their February 2015 meeting.

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/p41/P41_closing_press_release.pdf


IPCC PRESS RELEASE

27 February 2015

NAIROBI, Feb 27 – (skip on to the following - pg 3)

The IPCC does not do its own research, conduct climate measurements or produce its own climate

models; it assesses the thousands of scientific papers published each year to tell policymakers what we know and don’t know about the risks related to climate change, and identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community, where there are differences, and where further research is needed.


Thus the IPCC offers policymakers a snapshot of what the scientific community understands about climate change rather than promoting a particular view. IPCC reports are policy-relevant without being policy-prescriptive. The IPCC may set out options for policymakers to choose from in pursuit of goals decided by policymakers, but it does not tell governments what to do.
.....................
To me, this says they are only reporter of what some scientist are saying. They have no authority to tell us what to do. So for many to keep using IPCC comments as commands is wrong. Far too many scientist disagree with these scientist focused on trying to prove global warming is really happening. So far there are no proofs of their goal at all. It is all part of a political tool to control the masses.


 
SeaBreeze said:
An opinion on the long running arguments of both sides on the pipeline, I have to agree with this guy. http://www.elgincourier.com/opinion/article_2b7a5900-c13b-11e4-b28a-132b3f8f96fa.html

"There’s a U.S. State Department review of the project expected to be released in the coming months that may change things. However, after listening to the exact same arguments for more than seven years now, I don’t think anyone is going to be swayed one way or another unless someone, on either side, comes up with a better argument."
Click to expand...

He speaks a pretty good discussion. But one that too many make is the idea that only 50 people will be need to keep it going once the pipe is in. There will be many more than that required as each pump station will need some available watchers and fixers to make sure the product keeps moving and any repairs get planned and done. There are many such pumping stations along the path of these pipes. Also need folks to maintain these structures and keep records of product moved, from and to, and others for any possible leak or spill problems. Certainly a lot more that 50 folks needed. It will be interesting to see this report when it releases.

Canada has also threatened to stop the flow to the US and allow other countries to take the oil, big name was China. Right now I would think all those destructive actions going on in the Arab nations is a threat to any oil we might want from there. Scarcity means very high prices could be soon. We should try to keep our supply close by and ready for use.
 

I can see BobF is determined to win something here with his long winded rant but for the life of me I don't know what. There will be no pipeline. So, at least as I see it BobF is F'd.
 
Time will tell. I see nothing wrong with having the pipeline, especially since most is already in place. And that too was mentioned plus other pipes all ready installed by the author of the posted article. Any comments other than NO?

My long winded rant was about all this IPCC clean stuff that is not needed either.
 
BobF said:
Time will tell. I see nothing wrong with having the pipeline, especially since most is already in place. And that too was mentioned plus other pipes all ready installed by the author of the posted article. Any comments other than NO?

My long winded rant was about all this IPCC clean stuff that is not needed either.
Click to expand...

Not MOST, some.
 
AZ Jim said:
I know why we don't want that pipeline, but why does ANYONE want it? It can't be the few jobs temporarily created. Is it just because the President doesn't want it? Puzzled, but I suspect the latter to be the answer.
Click to expand...

Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline. Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily. The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives. Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.

It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future. Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.
 
Don M. said:
Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline. Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily. The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives. Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.

It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future. Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said Don. I'm not against everything the President wants at all, but this is one of those things that I would like to see some flexibility on. It will be safer than rail, it is a project that's already started, and there will be some economic benefits, although not the exaggerated figures we've been hearing in the pro and con arguments.
 
Safety should be the Highest Priority when moving any hazardous materials around the nation. When Partisan Politics takes control, it increases the risk of serious damages.

Lenin said it best, years ago, when he said there would be no need to ever invade the U.S., as this nation will eventually "Rot From Within". It seems that our political extremists, both on the Left and Right, are determined to prove him correct.
 
I certainly do agree with that comment, use our own, especially when so much of the Arab stuff is either shut down or could be shut down.
 
Don M. said:
Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline. Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily. The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives. Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.

It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future. Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.
Click to expand...


Well actually a major accident did occur. 47 people were incinerated in Lac Megantic, Quebec when a train hauling crude oil derailed and exploded in town. And in the last month there have been two derailments (with crude in the cargo and resulting in explosions and fires) in Ontario.

I think that the major concern from environmentalists regarding the Keystone pipeline is that the improvements to shipping will be a huge encouragement to the oil companies to expand and destroy further land. Alberta just recently sold leases to a company or two for land which happens to be in the middle of the forest caribou calving grounds of Northern Alberta. Those animals by the way are in danger of disappearing as a result of current developments in the region. And while that concern involves an endangered species, there is also a concern by all the citizens who live downstream and down wind of the regions where the tar is being dug out of the ground.

There is no good answer when you're talking pipelines and trains and oil.

But I watched a documentary yesterday called Pandora's Promise and it was about four or five known and top level environmentalists who've made a complete 180 on the issue of nuclear power and after watching it, I think that is the answer to getting away from these planet destroying products fossil fuels. Mind you, in the meantime, I think it is critical to get the rail that is used for transport up to snuff regarding the safety of the tanker cars and whatever valves and such that are part of that picture. Big changes take lots of time, but we could manage the little ones (like better tanks/valves, etc) right away.
 
So is this a comment not agreeing to supply our own? If the government wouldn't cut corners on everything or let companies cut corners and handle things correctly and safely there would be no issues with the environment, not from part anyway. Creating jobs would be a very good thing for us.
 
BobF said:
I certainly do agree with that comment, use our own, especially when so much of the Arab stuff is either shut down or could be shut down.
Click to expand...


With this thread being about a pipeline that was hoped to connect Northern Alberta with the Gulf of Mexico refineries, I can't help but wonder about the 'use our own' context in a couple of comments here.
 
Debby said:
With this thread being about a pipeline that was hoped to connect Northern Alberta with the Gulf of Mexico refineries, I can't help but wonder about the 'use our own' context in a couple of comments here.
Click to expand...

Well you know... Some Americans believe we "own" everything.. lol!! No... It's simply the uniformed voicing an opinion based on misinformation.. NO.. we do not own the Canadian oil... Yes.. It is crossing over our land and aquifer to go to a Gulf refinery... AND NO it is not for use in the USA so will do ZERO to add to our gas supply. That oil is all destined to be exported to the world market. In fact it will increase gas prices in the Midwest as keystone will divert oil from that area. A pretty high price for 35 permanent jobs I'd say.
 
Definitely an incorrect answer. One of our earlier posters did say that after crossing the US north to south that it went into a refinery and half would be US market and half would be overseas market.

More that 35 jobs being created across the US. That too was a false number that some that want to put down the build would use. Much as the overall pipelines are done already as about 60% are already in the ground and what is being proposed is the Alberta to Kansas City. Go back to page 6 and look at the map yourself.

What would the US own, is all the payroll this job can produce, all the payroll the refineries can produce, all the payrolls this oil can produce when put on trucks and ships for distribution to other areas. We would also own any and all taxes paid for the wages and the refineries efforts. There is lots to own for the individuals and workers and government of the US.
 
Last edited:
QuickSilver said:
Well you know... Some Americans believe we "own" everything.. lol!! No... It's simply the uniformed voicing an opinion based on misinformation.. NO.. we do not own the Canadian oil... Yes.. It is crossing over our land and aquifer to go to a Gulf refinery... AND NO it is not for use in the USA so will do ZERO to add to our gas supply. That oil is all destined to be exported to the world market. In fact it will increase gas prices in the Midwest as keystone will divert oil from that area. A pretty high price for 35 permanent jobs I'd say.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clarifying QuickSilver. I just wonder about the thinking of people when they refer to it as 'their' oil when they are Americans and the tar comes out of Alberta. But then again, my own mom, has often made reference to things that go on in American politics, with the question, 'how could they do this to us'. I don't know what she's thinking when she's saying that either. (and she isn't talking about foreign affairs in the context of American foreign relations affect the world/Canada, as I do. She's too often talking about your national issues as though she's forgotten there's a border between us). I guess sometimes it's easy for the lines to get blurred.
 
I don't believe "our own" was meant to be taken as owning it. "Our Own" simply means we have resources right here in the US to have enough oil for generations. There is an abundant supply that was discovered in Nebraska and other places. It is all just a bunch of who- ha politics that is sending this country to hell in a hand basket. God supplied everyone with the resources...it is up to the people, that is the government, to use them correctly and without greed..... It is quite amazing to see the Bible unfold.
 
Another way to look at it is when Canada, or their industries, trust the US to handle their products that means we own that product till transported or processed and then delivered. We, the US, have a responsibility to own that product till delivered. Rather have us be the owners than to see China or other hate the US countries become the owners. Supplies right next door so we naturally do get first chance to become the owners whether we bought the product or just agreed to transport it across the border and southward.

I am surprised the western Europe countries have not discovered some of the more modern ways of finding and developing oil products or sources. It seems that Russia has done well, why not others? Same questions for Africa and South America.
 
I'm not sure that all the corporations that are digging the tar out of the ground are actually Canadian. I believe Shell is Dutch, Statoil is Norwegian and Total is French and I believe there was a Chinese company there and of course, whatever the Koch Bros. company is called, is there too. And then there is also Suncor which is Canadian, but I don't think it's (mostly) our industries that are up there working and that includes the support services. I know there was a Texas company that had a division in the area that was building the trailers and such that are being used in the 'camps' although I believe they laid off a bunch of people when the Saudi's decided to destroy the world's oil producers by overproducing and driving the price down. As for the oil producers specifically, I'm not positive but I think those foreign companies pay royalties to the Canadian government as they pull resources out of our land so it isn't accurate to say that we are 'trusting the US to handle our products'. Foreign corporations have 'bought' the resource and their business process is to remove it from our land.

And the reason that the oil companies want the pipeline is because it reduces the cost of shipping from $25 per barrel down to $9 so the push for the pipeline really has little to do with safety (rail vs. pipeline) so much as it relates to their bottom line.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-...ulling-plug-their-projects-albertas-tar-sands
 
Interesting read. I did not know that oil companies had started to shut down. But with the Arabian countries having so many problems, then it might just be restarted soon. I hope that soon the pipeline gets authorized, our Congress with both parties wanting the pipeline would like to see the vote again. This last vote was pretty close to winning, but it did not. Too much of the current voting is pure political and not for just reasons. Political is not a just reason. So if this Arab uprising continues the oil problem may increase. Already the gas prices at the pumps are going up again. Trains and trucks are not the answer to moving this oil.
 
How soon the price of oil goes back up (which would encourage oil company's to begin working again) is apparently up to OPEC. And it seems to me that as long as the EAU, Saudi Arabia and all the rest of the group can continue to pump oil, which they are doing, the state of the ME, bad as it is, doesn't seem to be any kind of catalyst for the price of oil going back up.

And the closing of this article by the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30212365 the author refers to a comment by The New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman, where Friedman asks, "Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war under way pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?" He wonders whether the US and Saudi Arabia are trying to do what he says they did before to Soviet leaders: "pump them to death". So maybe the question is will 'they' give up first or will Russia and Iran blink? Or the unlikely possibility of both sides deciding to cooperate? A great big "Ha!" to that one.

As for the pipeline, so many motivations at work and so many variables, but somehow I think in the end, it will get done (my guess for what a guess is worth), but you're right there will be ample 'politics' involved.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top