• 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

More scare tactics.

You guys all act like TransCanadian was making some huge corporate sacrifice bringing oil into the US. That's crap. They obviously saw a chance to make some big money going to Texas instead of British Columbia. They're not going to give up on those $$$ easily. The "going to China" line is just that, a line, and not much different than "Do you come here often?" as to it's hopeful outcome.

More "scare tactics"?

Why should you be scared?

The pipeline will not go ahead and some claim there are just a few jobs involved anyway.

Canada will do all right and the Americans will have what they want, which apparently is a pristine wilderness and further experiments with solar energy.
 
:roll:
More "scare tactics"?

Why should you be scared?

The pipeline will not go ahead and some claim there are just a few jobs involved anyway.

Canada will do all right and the Americans will have what they want, which apparently is a pristine wilderness and further experiments with solar energy.
I'm not afeared - but many would look at your "misinformation" in that light, their worst fears realized.
"What? We lost that Canadian oil to China?!? That mean ol' Obama! Boo-hoo!"

Of course, we didn't lose it to China (and I doubt we will) but that's not important because truth in media of any kind vanished years ago. It's all about sensational headlines regardless of the meat of the story itself. And, well, if there really isn't any news then we'll take some old news out of the fridge and add some more spices to it.
 
:roll: I'm not afeared - but many would look at your "misinformation" in that light, their worst fears realized.
"What? We lost that Canadian oil to China?!? That mean ol' Obama! Boo-hoo!"

I've seen no one make these claims and if I've submitted "misinformation"why not point it out? While it's true that I strongly believe Brarack Obama to be in way over his head, the fact is that he appears to have sufficient support of the American people to affect their energy policy well into the future.

Of course, we didn't lose it to China (and I doubt we will) but that's not important because truth in media of any kind vanished years ago. It's all about sensational headlines regardless of the meat of the story itself. And, well, if there really isn't any news then we'll take some old news out of the fridge and add some more spices to it.

Yes, it's probably all the fault of the media.
 
I've seen no one make these claims and if I've submitted "misinformation"why not point it out? While it's true that I strongly believe Brarack Obama to be in way over his head, the fact is that he appears to have sufficient support of the American people to affect their energy policy well into the future.



Yes, it's probably all the fault of the media.

Well.. yeah.. The media is painting this as a victory for the environmentalists but that's not completely true.

One of these issues is property rights. As The New York Times reported last month, TransCanada Corp., the Keystone’s builder, “has been threatening to confiscate private land from South Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico, and is already suing many who have refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval.”

Keystone XL Pipeline Delay: Were Fears Of A
 
I saw no facts supporting that claim. I would call that misinformation, wouldn't you?

Actually yes.. China and/or other foreign markets will pay a higher price for refined products than they will bring in the US.
 
Well.. yeah.. The media is painting this as a victory for the environmentalists but that's not completely true.

But it is nonetheless true.

As far as property rights go that's another issue. The Supreme Court's recent decision regarding Kelo v. City of New London strongly suggests it is the Court itself which is a large part the problem regarding property rights, not Keystone or TransCanada Corp. They will do as the law allows.
 

Ultimately China is a better market for Canada than the US.... If TransCanada is going to spend 7 billion dollars.. they should build pipelines and refineries in Canada.

US supply is poised to increase dramatically.. while our usage is becoming more efficient.

I don't care one way or another about the pipeline, but I do think its a short term fix ...

Don't forget that Canada still imports a million barrels a day in conventionl crude from OPEC and the North Sea..........
 
Ultimately China is a better market for Canada than the US.... If TransCanada is going to spend 7 billion dollars.. they should build pipelines and refineries in Canada.

Everywhere is a potential market and every country can import according to their best price and advantage, as demonstrated by your examples.

Whatever TransCanada does is their business decision and I'll not attempt to second guess them.

The US shouldn't need to be "poised". Allowing more freedom in the marketplace wouldn't have necessitated this "poised" situation.
I don't care one way or another about the pipeline, but I do think its a short term fix .

Maybe. I recall Bill Clinton using much the same excuse when he was president about why drilling for oil wasn't necessary, that it would take toó long to get to the market. But of course doing nothing is always an option, and frequently the most risk free politically.
 
Everywhere is a potential market and every country can import according to their best price and advantage, as demonstrated by your examples.

Whatever TransCanada does is their business decision and I'll not attempt to second guess them.

The US shouldn't need to be "poised". Allowing more freedom in the marketplace wouldn't have necessitated this "poised" situation.


Maybe. I recall Bill Clinton using much the same excuse when he was president about why drilling for oil wasn't necessary, that it would take toó long to get to the market. But of course doing nothing is always an option, and frequently the most risk free politically.

TransCanada's objective is to take advantage of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone.. that's simply about Tax avoidance and profits.

The reality is that 60 new deep water drilling permits have been issued for the Gulf of Mexico.. and US tar sands, shale oil and gas are making good progress.
 
TransCanada's objective is to take advantage of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone.. that's simply about Tax avoidance and profits.

That sounds like a good company in which to invest. NAFTA was designed in order that companies, and people, take advantage of it. It would be counter productive if they didn't.


The reality is that 60 new deep water drilling permits have been issued for the Gulf of Mexico.. and US tar sands, shale oil and gas are making good progress.

That's good news.
 
That sounds like a good company in which to invest. NAFTA was designed in order that companies, and people, take advantage of it. It would be counter productive if they didn't.




That's good news.

The media.. and some Repulicans have muddied the water around this issue..

I think Americans can deal with the realities... without all the BS.
 

Your first link is 7 months old and can therefore can prove nothing about the 1 month old Keystone XL pipeline decision/deferral.

Your second link is an editorial that is essentially a rehash of your original link, neither of which contains any facts about selling any 'Keystone XL' oil to China, as you claimed:

Well, whatever. It's too late now. The oil is going to China.

Rick Perry: Texans Are Baffled by the Keystone Decision - WSJ.com

The right wing penchant for failure in these debates is baffling.
 
Go to google and put in Keystone XL, export pipeline..

There is NO shortage of information that this Canadian bitument will be refined and sold in foreign markets.
 
The media.. and some Repulicans have muddied the water around this issue..

I think Americans can deal with the realities... without all the BS.

It might be the media and/or the politicians. If the water is muddy perhaps they are uncertain as to what those realities even are.

It seems to me that people are deciding what they want to believe according to their political bent. When politicians become overly involved in the marketplace the future becomes less predictable. That seems clear.
 
Go to google and put in Keystone XL, export pipeline..

There is NO shortage of information that this Canadian bitument will be refined and sold in foreign markets.

I certainly hope so. And of course I supported the open market concept and taking advantage of those markets. I don't quite get your point here.
 
I certainly hope so. And of course I supported the open market concept and taking advantage of those markets. I don't quite get your point here.

Just trying to sort facts from political accusations and BS.
 
Your first link is 7 months old and can therefore can prove nothing about the 1 month old Keystone XL pipeline decision/deferral.

Your second link is an editorial that is essentially a rehash of your original link, neither of which contains any facts about selling any 'Keystone XL' oil to China, as you claimed: The right wing penchant for failure in these debates is baffling.

Oh, okay. So Canada will not sell oil to China then. It's all a big lie in order to deceive the American public and get them 'scared'.
 
We should be drilling our own oil.

Canada is not anything like an unstable Middle East, nor is it ruled by a whacky dictator like Venezuela.

This project is good for American jobs, for American oil security, and it would lower gas prices.

I haven't kept track of this conversation since my last posting on page 9 (post #89). So, I apologize if the following linked articles have already been posted. I will just say that while I agree with the initial assessment above - that America should be drilling for our own domestic oil in areas that lessen the environmental impact of public land and residential communities - we should also be very wary of this KeystoneXL pipeline.

The NY Examiner article by actor and environmental activist, Robert Redford, brings a few things to light I'm sure most people who support the pipeline hadn't considered or know nothing about, i.e., "why is is so important to bring this pipeline to the Gulf Coast" and "who stands to benefit the most for its exports". I would urge the supporters of this project to read the article and then re-examine your position on the matter.

Although Mr. Redford links Mr. Nocera's NYTimes article to his Examiner op-ed piece, I have posted a link here for your reading pleasure.

Keystone Pipeline Facts*|*NYTimes eXaminer

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/nocera-the-poisoned-politics-of-keystone-xl.html?_r=1

Additional information and/or commentary concerning this "foreign" oil pipeline project are provided below.

State of the Union: Nebraska landowner response accuses Republicans of playing political football with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline | Susan Casey-Lefkowitz's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Keystone pipeline has flawed economics | OregonLive.com
(Note: NRDC.org article links to the above article under the heading, "new analysis from Texas" which is misleading. The article is actually a Syndicated Columns op-ed piece written by "William Edwards, who runs Katy, Texas-based Edwards Energy Consultants". (See bottom of article for details.) Just wanted to be fair about who wrote it and where the "analysist" comes from.)

Environment, Economy at Heart of Keystone XL Pipeline Debate | PBS NewsHour | Oct. 10, 2011 | PBS

North American Oil & Gas Pipelines |Pipeline Construction in North America

A Pipeline Divides Along Old Lines: Jobs Versus the Environment | Ocala.com

Latest Pair of Oil Accidents Fuel Opposition to Keystone Pipeline Extension | Reuters

Go to google and put in Keystone XL, export pipeline..

There is NO shortage of information that this Canadian bitument will be refined and sold in foreign markets.

Which takes us back to the Robert Redford NY Examiner op-ed piece. Know exactly what brining this pipeline into America really means for America, folks. The issue of "job creation" is but a small part of the equation (figuratively and literally).
 
Last edited:
Wonderful! And you're doing just a terrific job.

In fact, when it comes to jobs and the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department estimated it would create only 20 permanent jobs and about 5-6,000 temporary construction jobs… not the hundred thousand jobs proponents of the tar sands pipeline have been citing.

I am just not keen on buying a pig in a poke... Better we know what were getting.

Motiva Refinery is fully staffed an operational NOW.
 
In fact, when it comes to jobs and the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department estimated it would create only 20 permanent jobs and about 5-6,000 temporary construction jobs… not the hundred thousand jobs proponents of the tar sands pipeline have been citing.

I am just not keen on buying a pig in a poke... Better we know what were getting.

Motiva Refinery is fully staffed an operational NOW.

Come on Sharon, don't you know that no sacrifice is too great if it means creating just a handful of jobs in the oil industry? OTOH, no sacrifice can justify creating tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs in the area of renewable energy.
 
Back
Top Bottom