• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Dickieboy said:
GREAT POINT! Now remind me who has the money to 'talk louder' with...OH, that's right CHINA...and how's that gonna help us kiddo?
Click to expand...
and what does this have to do with the rejection of the proposal for the keystone oil sands pipeline?
 
justabubba said:
let's examine these allegations:

that $20 differential represents the additional expense needed to transport the oil to the oil market place. once it arrives there, its cost will be at parity with the other oil on the international market
in short, what may appear to be a bargain at the well head is no longer discounted at the marketplace
Click to expand...

It would be if the pipeline existed, which would be a good thing. While the spread has fallen (probably due to Europe falling into recession), Brent is still trading at a $9 premium to WTI. Why would you argue in favor of such a market inefficiency?

as was noted above, once the cost of transport to the end market is added to the $80 per barrel well head price, that $3.6 billion is lost to cover the expense of transport before a pipeline becomes available
there is NO financial benefit which will accrue
Click to expand...

The pipeline will greatly reduce transportation costs and help to alleviate the price differential that exists between different crude oils. This is basically saying that it will make the oil market more efficient. So saying that there is no financial benefit because the pipeline will cause this price differential to exist is really dishonest because that would be a good thing for consumers, workers, the world, etc, in and of itself (hence the word value added). You are literally arguing against efficiency by saying this.

$1 billion in wages (assuming a $50K annual wage) would go to the workers during the total span of construction leaving $3.6 billion in additional profit for the oil company annually thereafter
Click to expand...

I thought you just said there was no financial benefit. So are you agreeing with me now, that this project creates value? If so, please explain to me why it would be bad for a company with operations in the US to be making a reasonable profit on its US operations.

it was estimated by a cite earlier provided, that the price of gasoline is expected to be reduced by $1 per barrel, 1%, due to the resulting additional supply in the world's marketplace. hardly a savings worth the added environmental problems that are expected to result (20-40% increased emissions above that resulting from processing common crude)
Click to expand...

As noted in the article, emissions from processing crude are much smaller than emissions from the actual combustion of gasoline. In addition, blocking the pipeline does not prevent the sale of this crude else where, so your position is not really putting a stop to these increased emissions. So, while I will agree with you that crude oil from oil sands is associated with increased emissions, I disagree with you reasoning as it being a net negative for the project.

i don't see any benefits going to the workers, other than those man years required to construct the pipeline. maybe you will point out how workers other than the pipeline builders will benefit
Click to expand...

Yes, as noted in my original post, the benefits will go to "workers who build the pipeline,
motorists who buy the gasoline, workers and companies that produce the oil, and the government that collects taxes from all the rest."
​
yes, the oil companies will accrue an additional $3.8 billion annually while our citizens are subject to loss of use of their properties thru eminent domain, our nation is subjected to additional environmental toxicity, and our aquifers and habitats are placed at needless risk, to allow the oil inductry to generate those additional profits
Click to expand...

I personally do not see the added risks as needless, the project adds efficiency and value, that will benefit many people in my view. I believe the risk are reasonable, and it is a fact that much has been done to mitigate the risk of spills. In fact, this project will have a higher degree of safety than a typical pipeline already found in the US. As noted in the article:

DOS calculated that there could be from 1.18 to 1.83 spills greater than 2,100 gallons per year for the entire Project.Although small spills will still occur, pipelines are by far the most efficient way to transport petroleum, and we could hardly do without them. The United States already has over a quarter million miles of oil and natural gas transmission lines, and millions more in gas distribution lines.TransCanada, the company that proposes to build the Keystone extension, claims:There are currently 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many of these pipelines co-exist within the Ogallala aquifer.​
Click to expand...

sorry. we are going to use X amount of oil no matter where it comes from. the taxes on X amount of oil consumed will not change if the pipeline is allowed to be constructed
Click to expand...

If you agree with me (which at times it seems you have when it fits your argument), this project will add value to the marketplace. That will increase real income and wealth, thereby expanding the tax base.
 
justabubba said:
and what does this have to do with the rejection of the proposal for the keystone oil sands pipeline?
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, identically the same as Iguanaman's #174 post...:lamo
 
iguanaman said:
Have you been asleep since then? It's not 1973 anymore granpa. There will be no oil embargos from the middle east or OPEC. Money talks much louder now.
Click to expand...

LOL ......... once again, the pusilanimous attempts of the liberals to feebly go ad-hom when they can no longer debate.

So you are asserting that we will no longer face issues in the future being dependent on oil imported from such as the ME. :roll:
That for some reason our money "talks much louder now".

That is one misinformed and hairbrained notion.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep it civil, gentlemen.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ......... once again, the pusilanimous attempts of the liberals to feebly go ad-hom when they can no longer debate.

So you are asserting that we will no longer face issues in the future being dependent on oil imported from such as the ME. :roll:
That for some reason our money "talks much louder now".

That is one misinformed and hairbrained notion.
Click to expand...

Sure, there doesn't appear to be any risk associated with relying on Canadian oil. I mean, it's not like they would say, "if we don't get our way then we'll take our oil and sell it CHINA!!" ... or anything.
 
AdamT said:
Sure, there doesn't appear to be any risk associated with relying on Canadian oil. I mean, it's not like they would say, "if we don't get our way then we'll take our oil and sell it CHINA!!" ... or anything.
Click to expand...

But that's what they said...
 
AdamT said:
Sure, there doesn't appear to be any risk associated with relying on Canadian oil. I mean, it's not like they would say, "if we don't get our way then we'll take our oil and sell it CHINA!!" ... or anything.
Click to expand...

AdamT said:
That was certainly their threat.
Click to expand...

LOL ......... Their "threat" ? For chrissakes, they are trying to pipe it South ! We're the one's saying "No" !!

As we will be importing oil for years to come, where do you think it wiser to have it coming from ? Primarily Canada and Mexico, or primarily the ME ?

Not a trick question ;)
 
AdamT said:
That was certainly their threat.
Click to expand...

Threat, maybe, but I see it as their alternative. What would you do? You’ve got a commodity that is traded internationally. Your immediate neighbor is the largest consumer of said commodity but is resistant in participating in building a conveyance of your commodity to them. Would you sit on your commodity and hope they change their mind or negotiate the transfer to the second largest consumer?
 
Dickieboy said:
Threat, maybe, but I see it as their alternative. What would you do? You’ve got a commodity that is traded internationally. Your immediate neighbor is the largest consumer of said commodity but is resistant in participating in building a conveyance of your commodity to them. Would you sit on your commodity and hope they change their mind or negotiate the transfer to the second largest consumer?
Click to expand...

I reckon I would try harder to allay my neighbor's concerns. It's not like the oil isn't going to be there next year.
 
AdamT said:
I reckon I would try harder to allay my neighbor's concerns. It's not like the oil isn't going to be there next year.
Click to expand...

And how would you propose to alleviate your neighbor's concerns?

1. Suggest that currently you are against but MAY change your mind? after the election?

2. Suggest that your current position was based on being forced and you intend to reverse after the reroute plan is complete and approved?

3. Other?
 
Dickieboy said:
And how would you propose to alleviate your neighbor's concerns?

1. Suggest that currently you are against but MAY change your mind? after the election?

2. Suggest that your current position was based on being forced and you intend to reverse after the reroute plan is complete and approved?

3. Other?
Click to expand...

I would suggest waiting for the review process to take its course.
 
Asserting eminent domain to force the pipeline through and ousting people from their homes and further damaging the environment just for the profit of the oil companies would be shameful in and of itself, but honestly, wouldn't it also be like investing big in VHS tapes in 2004 too? This is last century's source of power. Yeah, we still need fossil fuels at the moment, but any fool can see that we're in the last days of oil. We should be focusing our effort on what's next, not what is wrapping up now.
 
so why dont they build a refinery there? or perhaps even on their shores and build the pipeline to there?
this isnt a commodity thats intended for use in the US anyway..

dont foolishly thinking this will lower the cost of fuel, as we already have the capability to supply and refine enough to lower prices and yet nothing of the like has been done. there are plenty of tapped and capped wells that are available on land already leased from taxpayers.
 
WhyteRash said:
so why dont they build a refinery there?
Click to expand...

The reason they don't want to build a refinery there (in fact, the reason they haven't built any refineries anywhere for about 20 years) is because they know it isn't worth investing in oil infrastructure at this late stage. But then they have the audacity to ask the government to boot people out of their homes for this...
 
teamosil said:
Asserting eminent domain to force the pipeline through and ousting people from their homes and further damaging the environment just for the profit of the oil companies would be shameful in and of itself, but honestly, wouldn't it also be like investing big in VHS tapes in 2004 too? This is last century's source of power. Yeah, we still need fossil fuels at the moment, but any fool can see that we're in the last days of oil. We should be focusing our effort on what's next, not what is wrapping up now.
Click to expand...

Would you please cite a credible source of this project "ousting people from their homes." I will cite the FEIS put out by the state department:

Homes and residences within 25 feet of the ROW would likely experience many temporary inconveniences during the construction period (typically 7 to 30 days) including disruptions to privacy and property ingress or egress.
Click to expand...

According to the FEIS there are 28 homes/residences are within 25 feet of the ROW (right of way). I see no evidence of ousting people from their homes. Temporary inconvenience (for a week to one month) from construction related activity is not ousting someone from their home by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Read the article but did not see any mention of the company attempting to oust people from their homes. They have been trying to aquire land easements, but certainly have not tried to force someone from their house.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably true that many of the people could choose to just live next to an oil pipeline if they wanted... But forcing somebody to let you build a pipeline across their land with eminent domain definitely amounts to forcing many of them to move out. Nobody wants to look out their window and see some monstrosity like that.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah, that's probably true that many of the people could choose to just live next to an oil pipeline if they wanted... But forcing somebody to let you build a pipeline across their land with eminent domain definitely amounts to forcing many of them to move out. Nobody wants to look out their window and see some monstrosity like that.
Click to expand...

Look at what? The majority of the pipeline is below ground.
 
drz-400 said:
Look at what? The majority of the pipeline is below ground.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is. But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil... Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
 
teamosil said:
Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is.
Click to expand...

There is a substantial need for the project, and it will benefit more than just the oil company as I have said elsewhere. From the purpose and need section of the FEIS:

The primary purpose of the proposed Project is to provide the infrastructure necessary to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin heavy crude oil from the U.S. border with Canada to delivery points in Texas in response to the market demand of Gulf Coast refineries for heavy crude oil. This market demand is driven by the need of the refiners to replace declining feed stocks of heavy crude oil obtained from other foreign sources with crude oil from a more stable and reliable source.
Click to expand...

teamosil said:
But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil...
Click to expand...

We all could potentially have a meteor hit our roof too. Why don't you quantify the danger? I have read some portions of the EIS so I know what the chances of a large spill are. Historically, we could look at the other active portions of the keystone pipeline to see. From the FEIS:

The existing Keystone Oil Pipeline System has experienced 14 spills since it began operation in June 2010. The spills occurred at fittings and seals at pump or valve stations and did not involve the actual pipeline. Twelve of the spills remained entirely within the confines of the pump and valve stations. Of those spills, 7 were 10 gallons or less, 4 were 100 gallons or less, 2 were between 400 and 500 gallons, and 1 was 21,000 gallons.
Click to expand...

Note: None have actually occurred along the actual pipeline.

teamosil said:
Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
Click to expand...

It will not go right through someones living room. The construction company could potentially hit some lines, that is why they would do some surveying beforehand. This is basic stuff and would be ironed out before something is built. Also, the only parts above ground are the structures such as pumping facilities, tanks, etc.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is. But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil... Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
Click to expand...

When the various proposed high speed rail projects the current administration is pressing (you know in the stimulus bill?) progress are you going to be so vehemently against eminent domain for their construction? Are they also considered ‘substantial national interest’ even to those in other states who will NEVER use them? Also consider these will not be constructed below ground so there is a high probability they will have to ‘look out their window and see some monstrosity like that’.
 
drz-400 said:
There is a substantial need for the project, and it will benefit more than just the oil company as I have said elsewhere. From the purpose and need section of the FEIS:
Click to expand...

Not sure how you think that helps anybody but the oil company. Pollution hurts everybody, oil dependency hurts everybody, but the oil company makes more money.

drz-400 said:
We all could potentially have a meteor hit our roof too. Why don't you quantify the danger? I have read some portions of the EIS so I know what the chances of a large spill are. Historically, we could look at the other active portions of the keystone pipeline to see. From the FEIS:
Click to expand...

So yeah, picture 21,000 gallons of oil spilling under your yard.... Bad scene.

But, that's just this exact pipeline. They've had many, much bigger, pipeline oil spills in the US just in the past few years. For example, in Alaska the Prudhoe Bay pipeline had a spill of 267,000 gallons in 2006. In 2010 800,000 gallons spilled from a pipeline in Michigan. In Alaska's Kenai National Refuge they've had 350 different spills now, including one of 228,000 gallons. Or, if we want to talk about pipeline spills in general, lets talk about the Kolva River oil spill in Russia at 84,000,000 gallons.

These aren't freak occurrences. In fact the majority of oil spilled worldwide is from pipelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom