Keystone XL Updates
Comments
-
gimmesometruth27 said:
none of this oil is for our consumption. this oil is going on the international market and will ship globally from american ports. canadian oil companies will make billions, we will get nothing. we will assume all the risk of something happens and oil floods our own lands. the jobs will be construction jobs. what happens to them once it is built?
then there is this. the united states is now one of the top oil producing countries in the world. why else do you think gas has been so cheep?
this pipeline is a bad idea.
First of all these aren't "Canadian oil companies" unless you are talking about Suncor. Or CNRL.
Canadian oil sands have been invested heavily by US oil companies (Exxon) and the Netherlands (Royal Dutch Shell).
Moreover, all these companies are publicly traded on the stock market and therefore are owned by people the world over. The CEO and board of directors of these companies have a responsibility to the shareholders to make a profit and increase the stock's value.
Pipeline is the safest way to transport heavy crude oil. If you do not believe this Google the Lac Megantic Quebec rail disaster or the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill. The pipeline industry has improved the quality of the pipeline used in new mainline digs, and is constantly repairing the existing pipelines with integrity digs. This is where the long term jobs lie in Keystone. The pipelines are monitored 24/7 and people are employed to do maintenance, monitor, etc.
Alternative energy sources are not bad ideas, however I do not think people realize how much oil is used in what products you buy everyday. It's not just gasoline. You buy something plastic, it has oil in it. Chez Whiz? It has condensate. I think if you researched everything that uses petroleum based products you would be stunned... At how reliable on oil you really are.
Now for the Alberta oil sands, laughably dubbed "dirty oil" by many environmentalists and social activists. I worked I. Fort McMurray in the oil sands for a decade. These are the truths I KNOW as fact based on earlier arguments:
1) the "native Americans" of Canada prefer to be called First Nations people and the oil sands have done damage to the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca. An unusual number of people in Fort Chipyewan reserve have developed bile duct cancer
2) the oil sands companies give greatly to the community of Fort McMurray. Their generosity is unparalleled to any other industry I've been a part of
3) reclamation of mined land is accomplished. The land itself is not picturesque in anyway, a veritable flat wasteland of twig trees growing out of muskeg. Many swamps, etc. However unappealing it is, the land is being returned to its original state
4) the carbon released is another debate, however, each piece of sand has a drop of oil attached. Thee sand is tumbled with water, steam and caustic acids to separate the sand and oil I. The mining process. The companies have continually improved the process to the point where no water will be used in the future
5) the SAGD process causes little harm to the land. In fact, I see little difference between this, conventional oil or fracking.
6) the oil sand give off very little carbon on a global scale. It is estimated they account for less than 2% of Canada's "greenhouse gas emissions"
Now I love Neil Young and his music, but he has not lived in Canada for a long time. He has decided to call out the oil sands for environmental transgressions.
They can improve, and they know it, but which industry cannot improve it's performance?
As a valued trading partner, and our principle investor, we look to the U.S. to build the infrastructure to enable us to deliver our raw resources. Canada is a resource based economy. It's plain and simple.
The fallout in Canada from this Keystone debate is twofold. If the U.S. Doesn't want our oil, we must diversify our markets. Prime Minister Harper has recently visited China and signed trade agreements. China has invested in the oil sands (CNOC is a government run oil company in China). Canada is close to signing a free trade agreement with the EU similar to NAFTA.
The U.S. Economy continues to stagnate and we must protect ourselves. This pipeline is a great investment in both our nations. Trans Canada pipeline is a fine company with an environmental conscience.
That is just my two cents, as someone who has done business or worked in both the oil sands and pipeline industries. Keystone is a great investment in energy future for the U.S. In my opinion. This will undoubtedly be an unpopular post considering the slant of this topic, but the oil and pipeline companies are constantly improving.... Can we say that for all industry?
If you want to subdue yourselves, look up the environmental mess created I. Developing countries to produce solar cells for your "clean energy". It's typical first world "not in my backyard" mentality.0 -
My advice to anyone interested in this topic is don't listen to me, don't listen to Neil Young, don't listen to people who work in the oil industry, don't listen to Al Gore, but do listen to the non-biased, non-partisan scientists who understand this subject and make it their life's work.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://climate.nasa.gov/
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
If you didn't want opinions why would you open up the discussion in a forum?
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....0 -
Well this conversation is getting more interesting by the day.0
-
Your words:1ThoughtKnown said:If you didn't want opinions why would you open up the discussion in a forum?
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
"This will undoubtedly be an unpopular post considering the slant of this topic"
and:
"It's typical first world "not in my backyard" mentality. "
and
"If you want to subdue yourselves"
left me of the opinion that you weren't really interested in having a civil discussion.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.
And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...
As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
Conservation of energy is more important than any combination of continuing to burn oil and development of alternatives. The U.S., for example, consumes twice the energy it produces*. And even a moderate reduction of energy uses will not stave off the inevitable consequences of human impact on resources and environment. This is why it is imperative to look at reducing population as in key factor.lukin2006 said:I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.
And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...
As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.
*http://www.altenergy.org/transition/conservation.html
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
What if we built a high-speed rail car system parallel with Keystone XL?
Then both Democrats and Republicans could be happy about all the jobs that they created!Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
Jason P said:
What if we built a high-speed rail car system parallel with Keystone XL?
Then both Democrats and Republicans could be happy about all the jobs that they created!
LOL- clever, Jason P!
High speed rail- that's another interesting topic. I'm a big fan of rail and am a member of both NARP (National Association of Railroad Passengers) and RailPAC (Railroad Passenger Association of California) and both of those organizations are very big on high speed rail. I pretty much go against the flow on that one. If we had build high speed rail when Europe and Asia did, we would be their. But today the cost of doing so is prohibitive and I believe a better choice at this point would be to renovate our existing rail service. Railroad transportation uses the least amount of fuel per passenger/ tonnage of shipped goods per mile than all other forms of transportation. We would be wise to invest in our rail services.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
1. pipelines have spills all the time ... a simple google search will give you all you need to know
2. tar sands oil is dirty ... 3x the amount of resources to extract ... meaning all that dirty coal being used in alberta is used to extract more dirty fuel ... plus, it uses way more water consumption
3. don't buy into the oil company propaganda ... this is an industry that pumps millions of dollars into misleading the public about global warming ... this is the same industry that would rather pay the fines of an environmental disaster (if they have to pay them at all) vs. ensure that tankers don't run aground and cause leaks. Oil companies are probably tied with weapons manufacturers and Bio-Foods as being the most evil in the world.
4. just because oil companies create high paying jobs doesn't make it good for the economy or the people
5. educate yourself on alternative energy ... whoever wrote that alternative energy is the same as oil is completely misguided ...0 -
You can only conserve so much ...brianlux said:
Conservation of energy is more important than any combination of continuing to burn oil and development of alternatives. The U.S., for example, consumes twice the energy it produces*. And even a moderate reduction of energy uses will not stave off the inevitable consequences of human impact on resources and environment. This is why it is imperative to look at reducing population as in key factor.lukin2006 said:I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.
And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...
As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.
*http://www.altenergy.org/transition/conservation.html
Where do people draw the line ...
The alternative energy folk are the same as the oil folk in it for the $$$ ...
It's nice to be all green and everything but here in Ontario it was poorly thought out and is causing massive pain to a lot of people.
Really not so sure why we need to go that route, we could have our hydro off Quebec, built natural gas plants and closed all our coal fired plants.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science.1ThoughtKnown said:
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.0 -
the second group are not scientists at all. They are *consultants* who work for the industries. They are biased and what is truly naive is to think that they do real science.
1thoughtknown...perhaps a brush up on the scientific method is in order for you? It is a self regulating system that effectively eliminates bias on the large scale.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Thank you for making my pointbackseatLover12 said:
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science.1ThoughtKnown said:
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.0 -
Thank you for making my pointbackseatLover12 said:
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science.1ThoughtKnown said:
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.
Every point I made was from a civil point of view. You are entitled to your opinions, I value living in a democratic society where I can voice my own opinion and educate people in a public forum for what I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES.brianlux said:
Your words:1ThoughtKnown said:If you didn't want opinions why would you open up the discussion in a forum?
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
"This will undoubtedly be an unpopular post considering the slant of this topic"
and:
"It's typical first world "not in my backyard" mentality. "
and
"If you want to subdue yourselves"
left me of the opinion that you weren't really interested in having a civil discussion.
Those are my experiences and are based on my own thoughts based on factual evidence. I am no longer associated with the oil sands or the pipeline industry. I may be in the future.
On your specific quotes... Life is not a popularity contest, so I prefaced my comments here because I was the first person to have an opposing view. It is "not in my backyard" mentality because if you new how solar cells or LED lighting or any "environmentally friendly" things were made, you would applaud the oil sands on their environmental conscience.
Subdue yourselves = slow down and look at the big picture.
Not everyone will agree with me, I have no problem with that, but I have lived in the area. The pollution problem in the US is far greater than the oil sands believe me.
If you don't want our oil, it's fine. The European Union and China will buy it all. Before long the US dollar will no longer be used to buy and sell oil sending your country into hyperinflation as your dollar spirals into worthlessness.
It's happening between Russia and China already.... Be careful what you wish for0 -
I'm fairly certain backseatLover is talking about the difference between scientists who are true to the nature of pure science which is the work of seeking "a basic knowledge for the discovery of unknown laws based on well controlled experiments and deductions from demonstrated facts or truths"...1ThoughtKnown said:
Thank you for making my pointbackseatLover12 said:
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science.1ThoughtKnown said:
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.
as opposed to "paid off scientists" who are not interested in pure science but only in making a lot of money. I'm guessing you understand the difference between the two.
What might come into question is- which type of scientist is doing what? It seems very safe to say that scientists who work for the oil industry are of the latter type and scientists who do work to find ways to conserve and protect the environment are the former.
So as to biased scientists- yes, most- maybe in a way all- are biased. The question is, do you trust the scientist who is biased toward making money rather than revealing what is known through pure science or do you trust the scientist who is motivated more by finding truths through pure science and using that gained knowledge to work to lessen anthropogenic damage to our environment with the goal of living on a safer, cleaner planet?
As I went to post this, I read your last post. I always and totally support your right to voice your opinion. I'm totally on board with life not being a popularity contest. I am mine and I hope you are yours. I am aware that all production of things that are not made by hand are polluting. This is why I support the production of durable goods rather than crap and especially why I promote conservation. As for "your" oil- that was never intended for the U.S. market. As for subduing myself, rest assured: I am in full control and all systems are go! :-)
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
There has been a lot of hype over the negative impacts of Keystone for years. This is not unexpected; regardless of whether the media networks covering the news are biased to a liberal leaning or not the fact remains that controversy sells; and where there is an opportunity to create and even perpetuate controversy....well that is just good business. The arguments against Keystone are all very easily refutable. Pipeline integrity and safety is far higher than other means of transportation such as tanker or rail car. If you don't believe me I encourage you to stop and think about the relative basic engineering, construction, operation and maintenance requirements of a pipeline vs. other means of transportation or to consider the fact that the vast majority of you are currently supplied with your basic home heating via natural gas that is distributed through your communities through an extremely comprehensive network of pipes every single day. Interesting that THAT doesn't seem to concern folks as much as a large transportation corridor that is far less complex in many respects.
With respect to the impact to the native land or farmers' land that the pipe will travers.....this has FAR FAR more to do with a keen desire from those people sitting on the land that the pipeline would traverse to ensure that they are 'fairly compensated financially' for this opportunity than anything else. I have seen first hand how this 'royalty greed' has worked throughout the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. And I'm not really blaming these folks....but let's be real......there is no real ongoing impact to the land once the pipe is laid and the site is restored. In fact pipe like that can be used almost in perpetuity as long as there is a need and there is no 'leakage' into the ground of product being transported so I fail to see what the hardship is to these folks would be on a long-term basis.
On the subject of moving to alternative fuels......well sure that is a terrific suggestion; however not very attainable any time soon. One day maybe we will have advanced as a society to the point where we don't require as much oil as we currently use. But that is a long way off...and the fact of the matter is that the more the U.S. doesn't access its oil needs from North American sources the more dependent upon other regions of the world like the Middle East it will be. I don't think it takes much of a leap to understand that it is this link between the U.S. and the Middle East that is causing a tremendous amount of the problems between America and the Middle East.....because the Middle East is fighting against the U.S.'s history of controlling world oil prices. That game is almost played out my fellow American's, because whether you like it or not China and India and the like are becoming increasingly important in the world scene.....and the U.S. will likely not be able to 'keep a lid' on the price it pays for global oil as it has historically been able to do....and the result will either be astronomically high prices for oil-based products for all Americans and/or more tensions/unrest/US interventions/wars/terrorist activities involving the U.S. and the Middle East. I suppose the tree-huggers can continue to hope for a greener energy source to replace oil but they'd better do it fast because this demand for oil-based products in the U.S. is still on the increase.......
I would also like to take issue with anyone who believes that it is Canada who is benefitting the most from Keystone and that this is just a nice thing to do for Canada. Please. I work in an advisory capacity to many many companies who have invested in the Canadian oil sands or support the industry. There is far more international investment in the oil sands than there is local Canadian investment. Just as we have done with the mining industry in Canada we have pretty much sold all of our own natural resources to the rest of the world. As it stands right now more and more countries such as Japan, Korea, India and China are investing in our oil sands....and if the oil cannot get transported to American hubs for refining then it will get transported one way or another out of our country to other markets in the East. The fact of the matter is that the longer the US holds out on Keystone the only country that will really be negatively affected will be America. Canada has a resource that the World needs....not just America. We have had a great and friendly relation with our neighbours to the South but if the U.S. doesn't step up here we will be forced to work with other countries that will do business with us. I for one think that is more in Canada's best interest than to be as closely economically tied to the U.S., a country that has been economically weakening in the global arena for some time now.
Anyway those are just a few of my thoughts...as unpopular as they will no doubt be received. I get tired of people being so 'Polyanna-esque' in their views on things......coming down on issues on one side or the other without realizing that there is far more to the story than meets the eye. I also have issue with the hypocrisy I think is rampant on this subject. Those of you who are against Keystone....I urge you to look around your own worlds to see the amount of oil that contributes to your daily comfort every day. Maybe look in your own back yard before you begin worrying about everyone else's.0 -
Brian I am sure you are intelligent enough to know all scientist require funding, therefore creating a buzz in whatever field they are researching will generate more grant money. If they are privately funded of course they will slant towards industry, if they are funded by George Clooney and agree peace they are going to slant towards the environmental impact. Your choice of subject will bias your research no matter which way you flip the coin.
Now do I trust either scientist? Of course, because there are truths in either slant. Who I do not trust are the media which reports these findings because this is where the real slant begins. You stated "even FOX reported...." Yards yards yards. Despite FOX's right wing slant, they must try to maintain some semblance of objectivity. I did not read your link, just stating the media is there to sell advertising, not inform us. The real news is not on the big 4 US networks or their "news" channels. News is entertainment (yes that includes you CNN perhaps the worst news channel ever).
Back to Keystone, here is a link which refutes one of your (and Obama's) stance on Keystone.
For the record, Obama will be a forgotten president with a lacklustre career when all is said and done. He has really accomplished very little and US public opinion shows this. I have a hunch Obama is using this hill to stand on as a way to promote his "legacy". Wrong hill to die on in my opinion.
For the record, I admire Obama's attempt at universal health care (as we have here in Canada and his attempts to withdraw troops from Afgahnistan and Iraq. I am not anti-Obama, he is typical of the Democrats and their ineffective (or lack of) good foreign policy. This is a foreigners view of course.
Cheers0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help