The XL would connect Canada’s sludge fields to an ocean port in Texas for exporting. Quebec has ocean ports too. How about the Canuks pipe that stuff across their OWN country, not ours?
“Then they should build the thing! it is cheeper easier and safer then the rail and truck Waren Betty is using right now!”It’s even cheaper and safer for the US to tell the Canadians to process it themselves.
1. The pipeline is NOT a long-term job provider. 2. the pipeline is far safer than rail. 3. Tar sands ARE the dirtiest source, and product, for “oil”. 4. toon is correct, it’s straight to export. 5. Massive acreage in Canada is being destroyed for tar sands, and Massive acreage will be damaged in the U.S. during “refining” and disposal of wastes. 6. The pipeline bypasses at least 8 refineries that could be made ot refine the tar sands, far north of Texas if the product was for U.S. consumption. 7. Mitch McCoalman/sludge bucket will profit from this lunacy.
Nobody, including me, has said anything against the capitalistic railroads safely transporting safe goods from one area of this country to the other. But note, that I said safely, so if the railroads are so much less safe tranporting this junk oil from the Canadian border to Texas, then the transportation of this (as said by you and the other pipeline appologistic ultra conservatives) unsafe commodity should also be stopped as well as the construction of the pipeline. That is not being Communist, or even socialist, as neither I nor any other environment aware people have said that the government should take over the transportation of these unsafe commodities, or any other private railroad transported commodities either. If such a commodity is so unsafe, then it is only prudent that such tranport should also be curtailed, at least until the railroads can prove that they too can transport this commodity safely!
So, if we do not do everything we can to help and preserve the Earth’s environment, then out decendants will pay a truly horrible price for our greed which destroyed their environment. Perhaps even to the degree that they may not even be so priviaged as to even live upon this great Earth! If that is what you really want, it is certainly NOT what I as a father end grand father want. And if that makes me a Communist in your opeinion, then I would be very happy to be such an environmental Communist! But, as most true economists know, it is entirely possible that being environmentally friendly is also eonomically well worthwhile, even to those of us here now!!!
Once again, try to be intelligent enough to see just what and where the current price of oil is headed. And as someone else has truly pointed out, by the time oil climbs back up to where such unsafe and dirty oil is economically profitable, then other alternatives to just burning up any oil into the atmosphere for either general energy or the energy for transportaion will be profitable enough that this dirty and unsafe oil will no longer even be needed for the other non burning uses of oil!!
So personally, if I were a forward looking leader of Big Oil, I would be very heavily investing in those alternate energy methodologies long before they drive my pure oil burning profits out the door. And that would then be the actions of a true forward looking capitalist!!
@dtroutma:Not only are your seven points absolutely correct, but I might add: What other forces are driving for the creation of this pipeline?"Secret treaties, and even secret clauses of published treaties, have not disappeared from the political landscape. I have read about how the Sauds, in the 1920’s, were considering with whom to sign: Britain or the U.S.? They deemed the Americans offer most beneficial, and signed with us. During the 1970’s, with special envoy G.H.W. Bush preparing the groundwork, the U.S. and The People’s Republic of China came to agreements, in political and economic areas. It seems to me, and probably others, that we promised much to our co-signers than is generally known. And, I feel, these clauses were a great part of the reason (but not only) why we pulled Iraq out of Kuwait, and why this pipeline will probably go through. It is still my contention that the current price of oil will surge back to well over $100 a barrel, once Russia is reined in.I am fully aware that this is mostly my own speculation. (but a few others, as well). In another year or so, we may see if my take on this is correct, or I eat crow..ps: I left myself wide open, at the end here, for some clever repartee’s from our more outrageous posters! Enjoy!
A very good post as usual. The environmantal reasons for stoping the burning of oil for verious energy needs is supported by more than just the price of oil.
(1) Expecially here in the US, the need to not be dependent upon unstable areas of the world for our energy needs is a paramount consern. But it also is an issue in just about every civilized area of the entire world.
Indeed the need to preserve the oil of the world for non-energy needs is also paramount. Oil IS indeed a precious and even somewhat limited commodity (especially in the future), that is used in such important areas as: plastics, cooling and cutitng oils in manufacturing, medicines, and seven fertilizers for agriculture. It is certainly far too precious to be just burned up into the atmosphere, especially when there are technologically better energy solutions available.
The burning of such materials into the atmospher places many pollutanta into the atmosphere. And many of those very pollutants are responsible for much of the lung disease conditions that plague mankind everywhere. In fact, it has been found that economically the stoping of such pollution in itaself could very well result in lower over all costs to civilized societies, in the decreasing cost of health care alone!
And finally, there is the issue of World Wide Rapid Global Climate Change, which is not only a reality, but is at least somewhat caused by mankinds burining up into the atmosphere of the pollutants for fossil fuels.
And, if we continue down this road, all of these negative problems are only going to get continually worse and worse, regardless of what the ultra conservatives on this site say. And through our immediate greed we will be killing off our own progeny, if not all of the future life of the planet. So, let us NOT contiue to build infrastructure to continue in this direction!!
The Ruby Pipeline was built to transport Wyoming natural gas to California and supposedly, Oregon. I questioned what the ultimate goal was considering there was already discussion of LNG terminals on the coast to liquify the gas for export. One guy from Ruby (actually El Paso Natural Gas, which is Cheney in part) said yep, they’d be exporting.
Now they’re planning that pipeline from Malin to the coast, to ship the gas to China. If these resources are soooooo precious for OUR national security, why are we exporting them???
One of my Senators who I generally agree with is saying that our giving China the gas will allow them to burn less coal and reduce their carbon footprint. While this is to a small degree true, I still question why we’re sending OUR natural resources abroad instead of building our own economy, AND reducing OUR carbon footprint? Oh, about that link to Cheney and his friends, and the profit motive over “national security”. The same actually applies to that piece of junk F-22 and now F-22 built by Lockheed. (Where Lynne Cheney was on the board for years.
This is off subject but wanted to state, per Salman Rushdie on Real Time-Bill Maher last Friday, Saudis are pouring billions of dollars into schools teaching Islamist radical thinking—Wahhabism. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392444/Saudi-blogger-lashed-for-rapping-Wahhabism
Another observation from Real Time last Friday per Jay Leno, comedian and car man, even with 20 million more cars on the road, gas consumption is lower than ever before. Use of electric cars has become the answer.
“Danziger has a problem with America partially balancing our trade deficit with China.”Danziger isn’t exporting manufacturing jobs to China, nor is he supporting the government tax breaks for the companies that do.
LOLisgood4U over 9 years ago
You don’t have to continue to propagandize, Jeff. Your saint, Veto Obama will take care of it.
Kali39 over 9 years ago
Looks like the pipeline we’ve always had. All nice and green…
whopado over 9 years ago
The XL would connect Canada’s sludge fields to an ocean port in Texas for exporting. Quebec has ocean ports too. How about the Canuks pipe that stuff across their OWN country, not ours?
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
“Then they should build the thing! it is cheeper easier and safer then the rail and truck Waren Betty is using right now!”It’s even cheaper and safer for the US to tell the Canadians to process it themselves.
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
“Where would liberals refine the heavy crude that the Canadian’s have?”Canada. They can build their own refineries and pipe it to their own coast.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
1. The pipeline is NOT a long-term job provider. 2. the pipeline is far safer than rail. 3. Tar sands ARE the dirtiest source, and product, for “oil”. 4. toon is correct, it’s straight to export. 5. Massive acreage in Canada is being destroyed for tar sands, and Massive acreage will be damaged in the U.S. during “refining” and disposal of wastes. 6. The pipeline bypasses at least 8 refineries that could be made ot refine the tar sands, far north of Texas if the product was for U.S. consumption. 7. Mitch McCoalman/sludge bucket will profit from this lunacy.
frodo1008 over 9 years ago
Nobody, including me, has said anything against the capitalistic railroads safely transporting safe goods from one area of this country to the other. But note, that I said safely, so if the railroads are so much less safe tranporting this junk oil from the Canadian border to Texas, then the transportation of this (as said by you and the other pipeline appologistic ultra conservatives) unsafe commodity should also be stopped as well as the construction of the pipeline. That is not being Communist, or even socialist, as neither I nor any other environment aware people have said that the government should take over the transportation of these unsafe commodities, or any other private railroad transported commodities either. If such a commodity is so unsafe, then it is only prudent that such tranport should also be curtailed, at least until the railroads can prove that they too can transport this commodity safely!
So, if we do not do everything we can to help and preserve the Earth’s environment, then out decendants will pay a truly horrible price for our greed which destroyed their environment. Perhaps even to the degree that they may not even be so priviaged as to even live upon this great Earth! If that is what you really want, it is certainly NOT what I as a father end grand father want. And if that makes me a Communist in your opeinion, then I would be very happy to be such an environmental Communist! But, as most true economists know, it is entirely possible that being environmentally friendly is also eonomically well worthwhile, even to those of us here now!!!
Once again, try to be intelligent enough to see just what and where the current price of oil is headed. And as someone else has truly pointed out, by the time oil climbs back up to where such unsafe and dirty oil is economically profitable, then other alternatives to just burning up any oil into the atmosphere for either general energy or the energy for transportaion will be profitable enough that this dirty and unsafe oil will no longer even be needed for the other non burning uses of oil!!
So personally, if I were a forward looking leader of Big Oil, I would be very heavily investing in those alternate energy methodologies long before they drive my pure oil burning profits out the door. And that would then be the actions of a true forward looking capitalist!!
moosemin over 9 years ago
@dtroutma:Not only are your seven points absolutely correct, but I might add: What other forces are driving for the creation of this pipeline?"Secret treaties, and even secret clauses of published treaties, have not disappeared from the political landscape. I have read about how the Sauds, in the 1920’s, were considering with whom to sign: Britain or the U.S.? They deemed the Americans offer most beneficial, and signed with us. During the 1970’s, with special envoy G.H.W. Bush preparing the groundwork, the U.S. and The People’s Republic of China came to agreements, in political and economic areas. It seems to me, and probably others, that we promised much to our co-signers than is generally known. And, I feel, these clauses were a great part of the reason (but not only) why we pulled Iraq out of Kuwait, and why this pipeline will probably go through. It is still my contention that the current price of oil will surge back to well over $100 a barrel, once Russia is reined in.I am fully aware that this is mostly my own speculation. (but a few others, as well). In another year or so, we may see if my take on this is correct, or I eat crow..ps: I left myself wide open, at the end here, for some clever repartee’s from our more outrageous posters! Enjoy!
frodo1008 over 9 years ago
A very good post as usual. The environmantal reasons for stoping the burning of oil for verious energy needs is supported by more than just the price of oil.
(1) Expecially here in the US, the need to not be dependent upon unstable areas of the world for our energy needs is a paramount consern. But it also is an issue in just about every civilized area of the entire world.
Indeed the need to preserve the oil of the world for non-energy needs is also paramount. Oil IS indeed a precious and even somewhat limited commodity (especially in the future), that is used in such important areas as: plastics, cooling and cutitng oils in manufacturing, medicines, and seven fertilizers for agriculture. It is certainly far too precious to be just burned up into the atmosphere, especially when there are technologically better energy solutions available.
The burning of such materials into the atmospher places many pollutanta into the atmosphere. And many of those very pollutants are responsible for much of the lung disease conditions that plague mankind everywhere. In fact, it has been found that economically the stoping of such pollution in itaself could very well result in lower over all costs to civilized societies, in the decreasing cost of health care alone!
And finally, there is the issue of World Wide Rapid Global Climate Change, which is not only a reality, but is at least somewhat caused by mankinds burining up into the atmosphere of the pollutants for fossil fuels.
And, if we continue down this road, all of these negative problems are only going to get continually worse and worse, regardless of what the ultra conservatives on this site say. And through our immediate greed we will be killing off our own progeny, if not all of the future life of the planet. So, let us NOT contiue to build infrastructure to continue in this direction!!
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
The Ruby Pipeline was built to transport Wyoming natural gas to California and supposedly, Oregon. I questioned what the ultimate goal was considering there was already discussion of LNG terminals on the coast to liquify the gas for export. One guy from Ruby (actually El Paso Natural Gas, which is Cheney in part) said yep, they’d be exporting.
Now they’re planning that pipeline from Malin to the coast, to ship the gas to China. If these resources are soooooo precious for OUR national security, why are we exporting them???
One of my Senators who I generally agree with is saying that our giving China the gas will allow them to burn less coal and reduce their carbon footprint. While this is to a small degree true, I still question why we’re sending OUR natural resources abroad instead of building our own economy, AND reducing OUR carbon footprint? Oh, about that link to Cheney and his friends, and the profit motive over “national security”. The same actually applies to that piece of junk F-22 and now F-22 built by Lockheed. (Where Lynne Cheney was on the board for years.
Miss Demure Premium Member over 9 years ago
This is off subject but wanted to state, per Salman Rushdie on Real Time-Bill Maher last Friday, Saudis are pouring billions of dollars into schools teaching Islamist radical thinking—Wahhabism. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392444/Saudi-blogger-lashed-for-rapping-Wahhabism
Miss Demure Premium Member over 9 years ago
Another observation from Real Time last Friday per Jay Leno, comedian and car man, even with 20 million more cars on the road, gas consumption is lower than ever before. Use of electric cars has become the answer.
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
“Danziger has a problem with America partially balancing our trade deficit with China.”Danziger isn’t exporting manufacturing jobs to China, nor is he supporting the government tax breaks for the companies that do.