Pipeline good or bad, this was a no brainer for Obama.
Labor? He's gonna get the Union PAC money anyway. The people that control the purse strings are true believers.
Oil patch workers who may, or may not be union? When that curtain closes, you're gonna vote the guy who feeds the bulldog, (and that ain't Obama) no matter what lip service you pay to your "brothers" over a beer at the dew-drop inn.
Obama knows that, it's already in the equation.
The Geenies, however, are another matter. They must be "energized"!
Perhaps. But converting it to electricity on/closer to the mine and exporting the POWER, else refining it into directly usable (and more cheaply piped) end-products is possibly better yet. Extraction needs so much heat as it is that they are looking at building a nuke or so to provide it.
Originally Posted by Richard King
Truly large coal/heavy oil power stations can make a pretty effective go out of capturing stack gases and particulates well, AND having enough of 'em in one place to market them for useful applications. Not to forget, arsenic and such as well as sulfur are problematic with the tar in question.
I read everyone's articles they post here, pro and con, do you?
Nor do I consider PM .. where it is WAY off-topic - anything like a definitive source on such issues. External sources that DO so specialize, OTOH, I read a great many of. Links posted indicate I'm by no means alone on that, either.
The bitumen is upgraded in Canada. There are already pipelines moving OIL SANDS CRUDE that are not heated working just fine. ---Trevor
Pipelines are like rivers. Rail cars and trucks are packets. Pipelines can fan out, fork, retreat, adapt. The last mile leads to a refinery and tank farms. Count them and see if trucks and trains in a packet delivery mode still make sense.
Originally Posted by <jbc>
Where they make sense is showing up empty at the refinery and taking produce to the market place.
I am aware of pipeline topology. I just think the RailCar thing is being used as the thin end of the wedge between environmentalist issues and pricing power.
Originally Posted by dp
The ultimate logistics desicision wont be about the environment. This theater is being made for control of a slice of pricing power.
If the Canadians built a refinery up there, instead of a pipeline through the wilderness, they would face the same tree hugger opposition, it's a carbon based fuel, and not acceptable to some people.
I was looking today on the net about the safest way to transport oil and found two articles.
one is from a Nebraska job site.
"A leak of the Keystone XL Pipeline would not affect the majority of the Ogallala Aquifer ... those who think that a leaking pipeline will destroy the aquifer in Nebraska need to understand that it would be localized to an area of 10's or 100's of feet around the pipeline. When people say the whole Ogallala Aquifer is at risk, THEY'RE WRONG."
-Prof. Jim Goeke, Hydrogeologist, University of Nebraska
Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence
Another from Forbes Magazine that pours water on my Jobs info wish. :-(
First, consider the environmentalist opposition, which offers two main objections. The more global objection is that producing oil from the tar sands in question would produce large quantities of greenhouse gases – far more than would be produced by oil from more conventional fields. Well, that’s true. But blocking the Keystone pipeline won’t stop those feared greenhouse gases from reaching the atmosphere. With break even tar sand production costs estimated at $70 per barrel – and global oil prices averaging around $100 per barrel – the fields are going to be developed. The only question is where and how the oil will be delivered to market; to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast via pipeline or via pipeline to Vancouver and then on to tankers bound for refineries in Asia? Canadian investors have already proposed building a pipeline, called Northern Gateway, to transport crude from Alberta’s oil sands to Canada’s Pacific coast and Kinder Morgan plans to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline to do the same.
Keystone XL: Liberal Histrionics Answered With Conservative Histrionics - Forbes
But as they say in Forbes they will sell the oil to the highest bidder no matter what, as long as the price of oil stays up at 100.00 a barrel.
The US is a very large place and packet shipping via truck represents a stunning amount of licensing, fuel tax, income tax, road tax, union labor (votes), etc., than does a pipe. If the government could find a way to deliver electric power in a big brown truck (UPS) they'd do it.
Originally Posted by <jbc>
That's an excellent article Rich, and it sums up what I believe are the real issues with the Keystone pipeline:
Originally Posted by Richard King
"Proponents, however, offer arguments for the pipeline that are little better than are the objections. First, we hear incessantly about “tens of thousands” of new jobs (perhaps as many as 119,000 jobs according to an economic consulting firm hired by TransCanada, the firm that hopes to build the pipeline) for an economy in great need of new employment opportunities. Yet TransCanada itself acknowledges that only 2,500 to 4,650 workers would be required to build the pipeline. The remainder of the alleged jobs come from: adding jobs already created (or, in many cases, already come and gone) from Keytsone’s previous pipeline expansion investments to the jobs that would follow from letting the rest of the project go forward; dubious “multiplier effects” (the use of which is routinely attacked by free market analysts, at least in other contexts); and an ill-founded assumption that domestic rather than foreign firms will provide most of the raw materials and engineering work necessary for pipeline construction.
The only independent economic impact study comes from researchers at Cornell [That I was criticized for posting here ].
Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is, for the most part, devastating. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is devastating. Their conclusion? It’s unlikely that more than 4,650 temporary new jobs would be created and only 50 of those jobs would remain after the pipeline was completed. Big deal.
The argument for allowing the construction of the Keystone pipeline to go forward is simple but, perhaps, not politically all that sexy; the federal government should not needlessly frustrate markets and the gains from trade that go to market participants; firms, consumers, and labor. While conservatives might be forgiven for answering environmentalist histrionics with economic histrionics, they should not be forgiven for forwarding economic fairy-tales about how oil markets work or making such a minor issue a central plank of their policy agenda."
Back to the BARF BAG,i didnt know roMONEY and ginrich were gonna be in sotu address?
but I will get the bag incase ur rite!
Pipeline poster girl, ex-billionare and hardball loser Yulia Tymoshenko.
actually, the "Canadians", in this case, is the Koch brothers, and if they could make money on it, they could buy off whoever they need to- but the money dictates the way this goes. As always.
Originally Posted by thruthefence
They already own a perfectly good refinery in Minnesota that they send the output of their Canadian Tar Sand operation from, so why would they waste the money building a new one in Canada? I suppose, if the pipeline doesnt go thru, they might build one there, to supply the Chinese, but what I have heard is that Obama was willing to approve the pipeline if the republicans didnt tie it to other, political measures. So my guess is that it will still happen.
Dem says Keystone
Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved | Reuters
Almost all the money is US or Chinese. Trans Canada, Enbridge and the other co. that owns the Trans Mtn. pipeline. are all HeadQuartered in Texas.---Trevor
Ries, I love you like a brother, but here's a quote from the article:
Rep Ed Markey, (D) Mass
“The clean energy revolution is moving so fast, the reduction in the amount of oil we are using in America is proceeding so quickly, that they are an endangered species if they can't stop this new technological revolution,” he said of the oil industry and their supporters."
Do you, in your wildest progressive dreams believe this to be true?
With composite scores of 95.3, Markey is in the top ten of Liberals in the House. What spin do you think he would put on the pipeline?
In the Democratic universe, "Koch Bros. BAD" so....not only does failure of the pipeline HELP greenies, it HURTS the Demonic Koch brothers! A double win!!!
This is BS propaganda, and you know it.
Take a minute, and google "Koch Brothers & Wisconsin powerplants"
A year ago, they were going to seize control of them! Has it happened?
Not hardly, but it gave the left another straw man to bash.
Not a single word from any of the left after late February 2011, regarding this "imminent takeover/sellout"
Here's a quote from a United Steelworkers VP:
"The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing.
Incidentally, GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union. It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.
This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.
While some companies are running from investment in American jobs, The Koch brothers’ Georgia Pacific just reached agreements with its primary union in the paper industry to invest more than a half a billion dollars in capital to essentially create two state-of-the-art machines that conserve fiber and energy at two separate union mills."
If you guys didn't have the Koch bros, you'd have to invent them.
According to a link within the 1st link you cited, I find this statement:
"Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction. We are not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by this pipeline. We have taken no position on the legislative proposal at issue before Congress and we are not cited in any way in that legislation."
Further, the TransCanada CEO also states "...Collusion with the Koch brothers. I can tell you that Koch (Industries Inc) isn't a shipper and I've never met the Koch brothers before."
Note also that the comments section in your 1st link; the posters there almost universally call this article a load of unsubstantiated BS.
I guess you glossed over the information in this thread and the previous thread stating that Warren Buffett and Hillary Clintons former campaign manager both stand to profit from this endeavor.
Originally Posted by Ries
And here is a statement from Koch:
Keystone | KochFacts.com
multiple links to verifiable sources.
Will the Koch bros "benefit" from the pipe line, yeah, indirectly (which is what the talking heads will claim they REALLY meant, when confronted) like me, & you, and some of the 50,000 people that work for Koch.
Sinopec, China's state run oil company, owns a huge chunk of Enbridge. They recently bought another $5.5 Billion stake in the company.
Originally Posted by t.jones
By the way, from Ries' article. We (Americans) should be ashamed of ourselves
The review period was extended 90 days to allow for interagency cooperation, but Secretary of State Clinton created controversy when she said in a speech that she was inclined to grant the approval. Her comments came before the interagency analysis was completed.
Subsequently it was revealed that TransCanada's chief Washington lobbyist, Paul Elliott, served as national deputy director and chief of staff for delegate selection for the 2008 presidential campaign of then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Freedom of Information Act requests for communications with Paul Elliott have been perfunctorily rejected by the State Department.
Oh, come on -- that's bullshit. The Koch Brothers just happen to own the refineries at the source and destination of the proposed Keystone pipeline:
Originally Posted by Gewehr 98
"Flint Hills Resources Canada [Koch Brothers] also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
The company's website says it is "among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters." Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties.
This is pretty freaking hilarious: Fox is blaming the pipeline debacle on Warren Buffet and George Soros, and CNN is blaming the debacle on the Koch Brothers. You know things are f@#ked up when Hillary is in bed with the Koch Brothers
The reality is, this is just a big money grab, and all these players are just lining up for the take
"You know things are f@#ked up when Hillary is in bed with the Koch Brothers"