• 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

Oh, okay. So Canada will not sell oil to China then. [...]
After failing -- twice -- in your previous claim, you now trot out a strawman. Odd, from an intellectual standpoint.

Par for the course, from a propaganda standpoint.
 
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.

I guess we all believe who we choose to believe.

The waters will become less muddy in the near future.
 
After failing -- twice -- in your previous claim, you now trot out a strawman. Odd, from an intellectual standpoint.

Par for the course, from a propaganda standpoint.

What straw man? I'm conceding the debate you to.
 
I guess we all believe who we choose to believe.

The waters will become less muddy in the near future.

I should probably tell you that I love the oil business...
 
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



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).

If enough Americans agree with Mr. Redford that the pipeline shouldn't be built then, obviously, the pipeline shouldn't be built.

I'm Canadian and know there is a market for oil, just as there is for other natural resources, and it will be sold overseas or sold domestically. It doesn't matter to me. I feel this pipeline rejection is being short-sighted but that's just one man's opinion.
 
And I love the tourism business.

Well the oil business really enriched my life...

Decisions about pipelines are generally made by responsible people who weigh route against benefit and profits.. Its not a decision made in a political circus environment.
 
Well the oil business really enriched my life...

Decisions about pipelines are generally made by responsible people who weigh route against benefit and profits.. Its not a decision made in a political circus environment.

The business environment certainly appears to be for the pipeline while some leftist politicians seem to be against it. There certainly does appear to be a political circus going on, or at least a political sideshow. Politicians like BHO also eventually face re-election and we'll see how the people feel about this decision, and others, then..
 
The business environment certainly appears to be for the pipeline while some leftist politicians seem to be against it. There certainly does appear to be a political circus going on, or at least a political sideshow. Politicians like BHO also eventually face re-election and we'll see how the people feel about this decision, and others, then..

I agree.. I just think the American people should have the plain facts........
 
I agree.. I just think the American people should have the plain facts........

If only that were the case.

No one wants to screw the environment, put innocents in danger, etc. but that is often the way the argument goes. Common interests and what is good for the country and the economy often appears to take a back seat to ideology.

Eventually I just lose interest in debating people's beliefs.

Thanks for saying you agree with me, and that's probably more often the case then not.
 
If only that were the case.

No one wants to screw the environment, put innocents in danger, etc. but that is often the way the argument goes. Common interests and what is good for the country and the economy often appears to take a back seat to ideology.

Eventually I just lose interest in debating people's beliefs.

Thanks for saying you agree with me, and that's probably more often the case then not.

LOLOL.. I appreciate thought and civility in the exploration of any issue. You get high marks in my book.
 
If enough Americans agree with Mr. Redford that the pipeline shouldn't be built then, obviously, the pipeline shouldn't be built.

I'm Canadian and know there is a market for oil, just as there is for other natural resources, and it will be sold overseas or sold domestically. It doesn't matter to me. I feel this pipeline rejection is being short-sighted but that's just one man's opinion.

I think the project is being given it's proper due. For me, the issues are:

1. Safety. While no pipeline can ever be 100% leak proof, the track record for this particular pipeline (or at least that portion of the Canadian route, as well as the brief entrance into the U.S.) for the type of oil it brings still has a few safety issues that need to be addressed.

2. Access to rupture and clean-up. People are judging this project in a similar light as the BP Gulf of Mexico (GOM) oil spill, and I can't say I blame them. While there's a difference in repairing a oil pipeline rupture at significant ocean depths compared to affecting similar repairs over land, the environmental impact are relatively the same. The difference clearly is "access to the well" (or in this case the pipeline itself and, thus, clean-up and repair of an above ground rupture are obviously made much easier in comparison to a deep water well rupture).

3. Overall Environmental Impact. The environmental impact of a deep water oil spill are much different than an above ground oil spill. Again, access to the well is key. However, the damage done to "nature" from a catestrophic spill are different. We can use the Exxon-Valdez oil spill as a model. Although a "man-made" disaster, land, sea and animal life in the affect area bore the brunt of the impact. What made this spill different for the lower-48 was the "isolation" aspect of the spill. Most people in the lower-48 viewed the spill as "Alaska's problem," not America's problem. But let a spill happen anywhere along the U.S. route from our norther board to the GOM and people will see this as an "American" disaster.

4. Economy/Job Growth. There have been mixed figures as to exactly how many "permanent" jobs this pipeline will create. And while the jobs numbers are important, one thing I haven't heard folks mention (mostly Republicans since they are the ones pushing this project) is "how much oil would America get to keep?" What's the ratio, i.e., refinement -vs- retention? It's a question that requires an answer because by all reports I've read the bulk of the refined oil from this pipeline will be exported. And if that's the primary reason the pipeline is to come to the GOM - just to give a Canadian company access to one of America's primer trade routes, I say "no thank you, Canada!". But I digress, unless TransCanada gives a more accurate (if not more consistent) figure as to how many regular, full-time jobs this pipeline will produce "for American workers" and let the public know what the ratio of oil refinement-to-retention is for domestic resale (in barrels per day), I think the issue bares further discussion with far more scrutiny.

And mind you, we haven't even begun to discuss the more personal issue of imminent domain or revenue sharing as far as constructing the pipeline between two nations is concerned.
 
Last edited:
Well .. you may want to look at the Yellowstone River oil spill..

Its a completely different animal than an ocean spill.

Turbulent waters don't lend themselves to clean up.
 
Obama will wait until after the election, if he is still in, or the next President will give the approval. The politics are really what this is all about now but eventually it will get done.

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



icon_biggrin_notooth.gif


 
Obama will wait until after the election, if he is still in, or the next President will give the approval. The politics are really what this is all about now but eventually it will get done.
As I've said from the beginning.
 
Grant said:
Obama will wait until after the election, if he is still in, or the next President will give the approval. The politics are really what this is all about now but eventually it will get done.
This administration never said they were against the pipeline in general. It's just another wild stab into the dark by the impetuous wing of the right.

In bold (from the OP article) is their objection.
"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in a statement.

The pipeline may not be dead though. The State Department, which was tasked with issuing the permit, said the denial does not "preclude any subsequent applications."
 
Obama said no. Guess who said yes we want your oil Canada? Thats right China did. And Canadas PM, Stephan Harper said that they will sell it to who wants it, China. Good going Obama, Canada is our friend why does this administration continue to treat our friends/allies like ****? Harper also said "Canada wants to diversify its energy sales away from the United States" during a visit to China last Friday.

Canada PM: Will sell oil to China, raise human rights issues
 
Last edited:
Obama said no. Guess who said yes we want your oil Canada? Thats right China did. And Canadas PM, Stephan Harper said that they will sell it to who wants it, China. Good going Obama, Canada is our friend why does this administration continue to treat our friends/allies like ****? Harper also said "Canada wants to diversify its energy sales away from the United States" during a visit to China last Friday.

Canada PM: Will sell oil to China, raise human rights issues

China has been buying up Canadian oil companies right and left........
 
This administration never said they were against the pipeline in general. It's just another wild stab into the dark by the impetuous wing of the right.

In bold (from the OP article) is their objection.

Right. They want more studies, despite this thing already being studied for years. If you don't mind spending the money you can study it for several generations.
 
Back
Top Bottom