Obama to block Keystone Pipeline

[WildCat]

Since the oil that would be refined would be sold on the world market, can you explain how it's good for the USA economy

You really don't understand how refining crude oil into petroleum products for export is good for the economy? Are you similarly confused about how manufacturing and exporting widgets is good for the economy?

and provides a reliable supply of oil?

Because there's gobs and gobs of oil in Alberta, possibly the largest reserves on the planet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You really don't understand how refining crude oil into petroleum products for export is good for the economy? Are you similarly confused about how manufacturing and exporting widgets is good for the economy?

You don't understand how refining such products isn't significant when they are sold on the world market? How many jobs will this create, and for whom? Transcanada will likely not hire many USA citizens in this venture.

Because there's gobs and gobs of oil in Alberta, possibly the largest reserves on the planet.

I doubt it. I think there are gobs and gobs of tar sands, which is different than oil.

 

[WildCat]

Seeing as how algae can be grown virtually anywhere, I don't see a need for long pipelines. The fuel can be made very close to the locality of where it's sold.

It's still the same volume that has to be transported. And it would still have to be refined, likely in the exact same refineries that refine crude from the ground. Scattering production just increases the odds of a spill because you're increasing the possible spill points.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's still the same volume that has to be transported. And it would still have to be refined, likely in the exact same refineries that refine crude from the ground. Scattering production just increases the odds of a spill because you're increasing the possible spill points.

I doubt it. It reduces the chance of spills because the transportation routes are much smaller. Please explain how the number of spill points would be increased.

 

[WildCat]

You don't understand how refining such products isn't significant when they are sold on the world market? How many jobs will this create, and for whom? Transcanada will likely not hire many USA citizens in this venture.

The Gulf of Mexico is a long way for Canadians to commute.

I have no idea why you think manufacturing products and exporting them is not good for the economy.

I doubt it. I think there are gobs and gobs of tar sands, which is different than oil.

Who to believe, you or the US and Canadian government estimates of reserves?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Gulf of Mexico is a long way for Canadians to commute.

I have no idea why you think manufacturing products and exporting them is not good for the economy.

Wow, nice strawman. Please explain the net positive for the USA in this deal with Canada to export their products from our shores.

Who to believe, you or the US and Canadian government estimates of reserves?

Feel free to provide a non-Fox estimate of these reserves. Oil-shales are not the same as oil. There is oil to be found in oil-shales.

Also, feel free to explain why Obama should approve of a deal with Canada that allows Canada to ignore State rights in order to build their pipeline.

 

[BenBurch]

Ummm, did you see the 700+ incidents that were in the US that Ben Burch linked to??

...

That was an incomplete list.

 

[BenBurch]

Is there a chance that algae-based fuels aren't toxic to the environment?

Not really. Chemically the result isn't a lot better for the environment. And that's sort of the point, it has to be equivalent to petrol.

 

[BenBurch]

The real reasons this is opposed so vehemently is that the tar sands are refined twice, once at the source to make the synthetic crude and once at the destination. At the source, they have to take what is a waxy sour product and change it to a light sweet product, and the result is a lot of pollution. Yes, its pollution in another country, but some people have realized that it's on the same planet, and might not be a great idea.

ETA: I'm only against this to the degree that I think it's a boondoggle. We're going to have petrol for quite some time, and the deniers are forcing the day at which we can be free of dependence on oil to be AFTER the oil gets so dear that world economies collapse from the cost of it.

 

[bikerdruid]

The real reasons this is opposed so vehemently is that the tar sands are refined twice, once at the source to make the synthetic crude and once at the destination. At the source, they have to take what is a waxy sour product and change it to a light sweet product, and the result is a lot of pollution. Yes, its pollution in another country, but some people have realized that it's on the same planet, and might not be a great idea.

ETA: I'm only against this to the degree that I think it's a boondoggle. We're going to have petrol for quite some time, and the deniers are forcing the day at which we can be free of dependence on oil to be AFTER the oil gets so dear that world economies collapse from the cost of it.

yes, my country, and my province, and the great river i live beside.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And then build dozens of pipelines (instead of one) to transport the refined petroleum products to market?

You're not thinking this through.

I fail to see how dozens of pipelines are required to transport the refined petroleum products to market, at least, any more so than those same pipelines are required now to ship the same products to market from the refineries in the south. Are you going to claim that there is no market for petroleum products in the Northern US? That it's preferable to use a new pipeline to transport the crude to refineries in the south and then transport the more refined petroleum products back north? Sure, that creates extra jobs - but it also increases the risk for spills/contamination. Not a trade off you've yet shown to be worthwhile. So, really, your answer doesn't actually answer the question I posed.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sure, that creates extra jobs - but it also increases the risk for spills/contamination. Not a trade off you've yet shown to be worthwhile. So, really, your answer doesn't actually answer the question I posed.

Piping the Canadian sludge to a refinery on the northern tier that can process it would also create jobs, mostly permanent ones.

The oil investors do not like that idea, though, partly because they want to sell the finished product abroad, and partly because the people working in the northern refinery would be mostly union people who are always whining about things like a day's provisions for a day's work and health and safety violations and all that sort of thing that keep ther investors from making massive, nearly tax-free returns on their investments.

 

[WildCat]

I fail to see how dozens of pipelines are required to transport the refined petroleum products to market, at least, any more so than those same pipelines are required now to ship the same products to market from the refineries in the south. Are you going to claim that there is no market for petroleum products in the Northern US? That it's preferable to use a new pipeline to transport the crude to refineries in the south and then transport the more refined petroleum products back north?

The refineries in the gulf region already have dozens of pipelines to carry the refined petroleum products to market. And you seem to be completely unaware that not a whole lot of people live in the northern part of the US between the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes regions, they couldn't possibly consume all the petroleum products being produced from the oil sands.

Sure, that creates extra jobs - but it also increases the risk for spills/contamination. Not a trade off you've yet shown to be worthwhile. So, really, your answer doesn't actually answer the question I posed.

Quite the opposite, the risk of spills and contamination is greatly increased if you transport by truck or railroad. It's also far more expensive to transport that way, and such transportation emits far more pollution as well.

Pipelines are by far the most efficient and safest way to transport liquids.

 

[WildCat]

Piping the Canadian sludge to a refinery on the northern tier that can process it would also create jobs, mostly permanent ones.

The oil investors do not like that idea, though, partly because they want to sell the finished product abroad, and partly because the people working in the northern refinery would be mostly union people who are always whining about things like a day's provisions for a day's work and health and safety violations and all that sort of thing that keep ther investors from making massive, nearly tax-free returns on their investments.

What northern refinery can handle the "Canadian sludge"? And what is your evidence that Gulf refineries have more lax safety standards than northern refineries?

 

[NoahFence]

Your wife's company covers up oil spills?

They CLEAN them. FFS read.

 

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by NoahFence
The talking point's aren't "Look at the money we'll make" - it's "Look at the money we'll save" - by using this oil. Trouble is, the oil isn't meant for the US.

Where are you seeing this talking point?

...From you!

You said that this:

Why do you think it matters where it is sold? And isn't exporting the refined petroleum products good for the economy and the balance of trade?

 

[WildCat]

They CLEAN them. FFS read.

You do realize that oil spills are not secret, don't you? You act as if you can't document them because it's a company secret or something, they should be public record.

 

[WildCat]

...From you!

You said that this:

And you said:

The talking point's aren't "Look at the money we'll make" - it's "Look at the money we'll save" - by using this oil.

How do you get "look at the money we'll save" from me pointing out that exporting manufactured goods is good for the economy?

 

[NoahFence]

You do realize that oil spills are not secret, don't you? You act as if you can't document them because it's a company secret or something, they should be public record.

No I don't.

I act as if they're woefully under reported, and I act like I know that because my wife works for a company that cleans them more often than you and I read about it in the paper.

 

[NoahFence]

And you said:

How do you get "look at the money we'll save" from me pointing out that exporting manufactured goods is good for the economy?

Are you being contrary just for the sake of doing so?

It would explain a great many things.