• 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!

Senate nears 60 on Keystone

Does that mean we should build this pipeline? A pipeline that is in danger? A pipeline that is going to create very few fulltime US jobs? A pipeline for in the long term will not benefit this country?

Yes.
No, it is not.
If it creates one, isn't that a plus?
Why not?
 
Personally, at this point, I hope President Obama vetoes the bill and the Senate is unable to come up with the 67 votes to override it. Many Canadians, if not most, at this point would prefer we keep the production and transportation in country to both the west coast, for transport to Asia and to the east coast, for transport to Europe. If the powers that be don't want to be good business partners with Canada and its rich natural resources, we can find friends and partners elsewhere. The US has benefited greatly from decades of undervalued oilsands product and it's time Canadians benefited from the full market value of their resource. And we'll have long memories too.

Well said and supported by this Canadian and just about everyone I know....

We are building condensing plans for Liquified Natural gas in the far north in Prince Rupert for export to China, plans are already under way to build a pipeline from Fort McMurray through the worst of the Rockies to the Rupe...negating the entire need for Keystone. Harper's Conservatives are on board, as are BC's Liberals and Alberta's ever Conservative government..all that remains in the traditional ay off to First Nations and we're a go....extraction, primary cleansing, refining and shipment all in country and Canadian jobs..

Yeah, I would rather this turkey die a quick death we will be better off.

The Chinese will **** though
 
So tear up all those railroad tracks and the existing 186,000 miles of pipeline, and if you like we can take back the right of way for the Alaskan oil that runs through Canada.

If your so opposed that is......

I have no problem with Canada refining it's own oil or Alaska refining it's oil or using some other means of transporting goods to the mainland US.
 
History of Oil Spills Plagues Future of Keystone XL Pipeline » EcoWatch
Keystone XL pipeline may threaten aquifer that irrigates much of the central U.S. - The Washington Post
After 12 Oil Spills in One Year, TransCanada Says Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Will Be Safest in U.S. | ThinkProgress
30jlgcw.jpg

More propaganda. You being a red, shouldn't surprise anyone that alarmist, anti-business propaganda is all that you would know.

When you pass on or post such propaganda from a highly biased and propaganda ridden source, there is no conclusion that can be drawn other that you will fall for almost any kind of bs.
 
What I do not understand is the fact we have at present 186,000 miles of liquid oil pipelines in the United States already. What the heck is another 2-3,000 miles gonna hurt when you already have 75 times or something close to that here already. I agree, it is much more dangerous to ship oil via truck and train than through a pipeline.

Another thing, if we can somehow become energy independent with Canada's help, why not. It would reduce the chance of us getting into a war over a oil shipping lane or trying to protect a middle eastern country oil producing capability from whomever. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit and oil accounts for over half of that. We are helping other countries economy and giving them jobs when that money could be spent here along with the jobs. Then too, for every new job that means one less person on unemployment or what have you and that means less spending. It also means that taxes will be collected from the those jobs created and that increases revenues.

Think about it. What is one of the primary goals of the enviro-nuts? To get rid of the gasoline/diesel internal combustion engines and to end the use of fossil fuels. Because they are not smart enough to actually invest into research and create viable alternatives, they instead attack in what ever way they think people will believe. They invest heavily into propaganda (such as what Demsocialist keeps posting), political activism and in many cases enviro-terrorism.

To oppress instead of create has long been a hallmark of the left. It surprises you that they use it in their "fight" against fossil fuels?
 
Think about it. What is one of the primary goals of the enviro-nuts? To get rid of the gasoline/diesel internal combustion engines and to end the use of fossil fuels. Because they are not smart enough to actually invest into research and create viable alternatives, they instead attack in what ever way they think people will believe. They invest heavily into propaganda (such as what Demsocialist keeps posting), political activism and in many cases enviro-terrorism.

To oppress instead of create has long been a hallmark of the left. It surprises you that they use it in their "fight" against fossil fuels?

Not really, what surprised me when I looked it up was that even the majority of Democrats are for the pipeline by a 49-38 margin. Except for that one group within the Democratic Party it seems the rest are for it to include the unions.

Keystone XL Pipeline Divides Democrats | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

1) Americans aren't getting the oil. So it's not like it's going to lower our energy costs.
2) American's are taking all the risk by shipping it over their lands. There's a reason Canadians have already passed on this...
3) Very few permanent jobs after all the construction is done. So...

American's get what benefit from this? Not many Americans, fortunately Republicans have their useful idiot followers who can always be relied upon to shortchange other Americans. I'd be fine with this too if I knew for certain that once there's an oil spill national resources would not be used in the cleanup. But you know many of these state's rights hypocrites will be crying for federal aid once a disaster happens.
 
Not really, what surprised me when I looked it up was that even the majority of Democrats are for the pipeline by a 49-38 margin. Except for that one group within the Democratic Party it seems the rest are for it to include the unions.

Keystone XL Pipeline Divides Democrats | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Labor and Environmentalist in the same party has always been rather strange, since Environmentalism has costs this country more jobs than just about anything. Environmentalism is the one faction on the left that has not always been there. Sure, they don't fit on the right, but they really don't fit on the left either. Perhaps, as the green party grows, we will see a change in the Dems as the enviro-nuts migrate over. Not that I would piss on either if I saw them on fire. Environmentalism, like fascism, doesn't really fit the spectrum but is generally a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

1) Americans aren't getting the oil. So it's not like it's going to lower our energy costs.
2) American's are taking all the risk by shipping it over their lands. There's a reason Canadians have already passed on this...
3) Very few permanent jobs after all the construction is done. So...

American's get what benefit from this? Not many Americans, fortunately Republicans have their useful idiot followers who can always be relied upon to shortchange other Americans. I'd be fine with this too if I knew for certain that once there's an oil spill national resources would not be used in the cleanup. But you know many of these state's rights hypocrites will be crying for federal aid once a disaster happens.

Actually, we will also be using the pipeline for some of our own oil. As it passes through several states that are either new fields of production or ones that have seen the refineries close to which they previously had pipelines, that oil will be able to be shipped from the fields to the refineries much more affordably.

If someone thinks this pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen, they apparently are not aware of how much oil is currently being shipped by rail and trucks which is far more likely to have spills.
 
Hurrah! Congress finally gets something positive done. Great for Canada, good for the US and a wash for the environment.

Btw, for the uninformed, the pipeline itself will be carrying nothing different than all the other existing pipelines. The tar sands are still processed where they are already processed and have been for years.

Tar sands are "processed" by adding thinning agents to allow them to flow thought he pipeline. Amazingly those agents are EVEN more harmful to the environment than the sticky oil that goes with it. Tar sands processing and refining produces more Co2 than conventional crude and is very expensive too. The 1st Keystone pipeline which runs to the Midwest had 11 leaks in the first year of operation too.

FACT #1: The Alberta oil sands have a huge carbon footprint. To illustrate, a Honda Accord burning tar sands gasoline has the same climate impact as a Chevy Suburban using conventional gasoline.1


FACT #2: The Alberta oil sands produce lakes of toxic sludge. A 2013 report concluded that an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River. Also, according to documents from the Canadian government, the tailings ponds are leaking into and contaminating Alberta groundwater.

FACT #3: In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.

The owner of the toxic tailings lake, a tar sands company Syncrude, was fined $3 million in 2010 for the duck deaths. According to the CBC, “Syncrude lawyer Jack Marshall told the court that the company apologizes for the incident and recognizes it must do much better when it comes to protecting wildlife.”

FACT #4: The Alberta tar sands are holding Canada back on climate change action. Canada would be on track to reduce climate pollution over the next decade if not for the planned expansion of the tar sands industry. Instead Canadian emissions are predicted to increase.4

FACT #5: The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 176 square kilometers and can be seen from space.

FACT #6: Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.

FACT #7: The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.

FACT #8: Fully exploiting the tar sands could release more climate pollution than the USA and China combined – or EU plus China combined – have released in all their history. It could surpass all the oil ever burned by humanity.8

FACT #9: Emissions from the Alberta Oil Sands have increased some 267 percent between 1990 and 2011, according to Environment Canada, although per-barrel emissions have gone down a reported 26 percent. The overall increase of Canada’s expanding tar sands extraction, however, has the nation’s total emissions set to increase steadily over the next several decades.

FACT #10: Climate pollution from producing tar sands oil is projected to hit 104 MtCO2 by 2020. That is twice current emissions from Norway or Bangladesh – and exceeds the combined emissions from 85 nations.10
Top 10 facts about Alberta's Oil Sands

Not only is Keystone a disaster waiting to happen for he environment of the US, it will raise gas prices by providing a path for Midwest oil to be exported along with the tar sands production all for 50 full time jobs....But at least Obama will veto this and every other hare brained bill the GOP can think up. You do know that right?
 
Well said and supported by this Canadian and just about everyone I know....

We are building condensing plans for Liquified Natural gas in the far north in Prince Rupert for export to China, plans are already under way to build a pipeline from Fort McMurray through the worst of the Rockies to the Rupe...negating the entire need for Keystone. Harper's Conservatives are on board, as are BC's Liberals and Alberta's ever Conservative government..all that remains in the traditional ay off to First Nations and we're a go....extraction, primary cleansing, refining and shipment all in country and Canadian jobs..

Yeah, I would rather this turkey die a quick death we will be better off.

The Chinese will **** though

My advice is shut the whole tars sands project down. Its' too expensive in too many ways. Now that the Chinese have signed on to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions, you won't be able to unload it on them. Tar sands **** will need 3 times the carbon credits as regular crude. It will become too dirty to use...cut your losses and put that land back into something tolerable that won't give us all cancer.. I'm surprised we can't smell it here in Florida. The entire project is an environmental nightmare whose time is long past.
 
Last edited:
Actually, we will also be using the pipeline for some of our own oil. As it passes through several states that are either new fields of production or ones that have seen the refineries close to which they previously had pipelines, that oil will be able to be shipped from the fields to the refineries much more affordably.

If someone thinks this pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen, they apparently are not aware of how much oil is currently being shipped by rail and trucks which is far more likely to have spills.

You are right we will be using that pipeline to export more oil and raise prices for us. Sure sounds like it is worth the risks. After all it will employ 50 whole Americans when completed in 2 years.
 
Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Yeah, but it's gonna make a couple of big corporations a lot of money. And that's all that really matters in this country, isn't it? Next we have to make sure that they don't pay any taxes on those profits.
 
Labor and Environmentalist in the same party has always been rather strange, since Environmentalism has costs this country more jobs than just about anything. Environmentalism is the one faction on the left that has not always been there. Sure, they don't fit on the right, but they really don't fit on the left either. Perhaps, as the green party grows, we will see a change in the Dems as the enviro-nuts migrate over. Not that I would piss on either if I saw them on fire. Environmentalism, like fascism, doesn't really fit the spectrum but is generally a bad thing.

Environmentalism is like a religion. There have been times when I thought the Environmentalist would be very happy to see the end of mankind so the world would remain pristine. But having people in the same political party with opposite views on one, two or even a few issues is really the norm. The GOP has a lot of members who are fiscal conservative but are not pro life or not anti-gay marriage for an example.

But I do think you are right in that if the Green Party could become a viable third party with a real chance to win elections the environmentalist they would indeed move into it. The green party is more of a political match for them than the Democrats. Think of this, if this billionaire environmentalist guy in California would have donated his 100 million to the green party instead if he ever did to the Democratic senatorial campaign for not approving the Keystone pipeline to the green party. I would wager that a some of their governor candidates would have become competitive, maybe a couple of their senate candidates, but if the green party had concentrated a lot of that cash that on their House candidates, cheaper and a bigger bang for their investment, they probably would have won 5 seats and perhaps one or two more out of the 15 or so candidates they ran for House seats.

Imagine the publicity in the MSM. Green Party candidate leading in the polls in such and such house races or green party candidate for governor within 5 points of the lead in Colorado or Illinois. That would be free publicity and would attract more donors from the public at large. Especially if the green party won some seat in the house there would be articles and stories in the MSM about the possibility of them becoming that viable third political party.

But that guy from California didn't so the above is meaningless.
 
My advice is shut the whole tars sands project down. Its' too expensive in too many ways. Now that the Chinese have signed on to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions, you won't be able to unload it on them. Tar sands **** will need 3 times the carbon credits as regular crude. It will become too dirty to use...cut your losses and put that land back into something tolerable that won't give us all cancer.. I'm surprised we can't smell it here in Florida. The entire project is an environmental nightmare whose time is long past.
You don't honestly think the Chinese are going to do anything to limit greenhouse gasses do you? Communists don't care about the environment. They care about power. If they address emissions in China it will be to placate the masses, not because they buy into some global warming nonsense. Communists will agree to anything. Then go right out and ignore the agreement.
 
You don't honestly think the Chinese are going to do anything to limit greenhouse gasses do you? Communists don't care about the environment. They care about power. If they address emissions in China it will be to placate the masses, not because they buy into some global warming nonsense. Communists will agree to anything. Then go right out and ignore the agreement.

Well at least if they buy that tar sands crap we will know they are bluffing. I doubt they will though. It will become a pariah that no one wants.
 
Well at least if they buy that tar sands crap we will know they are bluffing. I doubt they will though. It will become a pariah that no one wants.
Its oil. Someone will want it. If not everyone.
 
You are right we will be using that pipeline to export more oil and raise prices for us. Sure sounds like it is worth the risks. After all it will employ 50 whole Americans when completed in 2 years.

You mean like the exportation of Shale oil has recently caused such a drastic rise in gas prices over the last month? Maybe where you live, but gas prices here are over $.50 lower. Of course, Obama and his henchmen are now fighting against the deflationary affects of lowering oil prices.

And no, it will not all be exported. It will be pumped into the refineries in the Houston area. Perhaps that which is shipped from Canada will be exported, but then again, it was never really imported.
 
Read more @: Senate nears 60 on Keystone

Looks like the Keystone Pipeline is gonna get passed the Senate. A bad deal that is gonna hurt a lot of people, worsen the environment, and really not help the US economy at all is most likely gonna be passed. [/FONT][/COLOR]

it sucks. For very few jobs, we're going to speed up climate change and risk more environmental damage. For oil that won't even be sold to us.
 
You mean like the exportation of Shale oil has recently caused such a drastic rise in gas prices over the last month? Maybe where you live, but gas prices here are over $.50 lower. Of course, Obama and his henchmen are now fighting against the deflationary affects of lowering oil prices.

And no, it will not all be exported. It will be pumped into the refineries in the Houston area. Perhaps that which is shipped from Canada will be exported, but then again, it was never really imported.

We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline surely that is enough. I hope you like breathing all those carcinogens that refining releases so other countries don't need refineries and can have clean air. There is no pipeline to Houston from the shale oil deposits now so no, exporting shale oil is not raising prices. That will change if XL goes through. I can guarantee you it won't be on Obama's watch...or Hillary's so don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
Its oil. Someone will want it. If not everyone.

We are practically swimming in oil now. We need to put that tar sand crap back for a generation or 2 at least. Maybe then we will know how to use it efficiently.
 
We are practically swimming in oil now. We need to put that tar sand crap back for a generation or 2 at least. Maybe then we will know how to use it efficiently.

The oil is being extracted and sold now. It's presence on the market is one reason there is so much. The only question is whether we in the US will share in the wealth. We do that by building the Keystone XL in order to become the primary refiner of the Canadian crude.
 
Last edited:
The oil is being extracted and sold now. It's presence on the market is one reason there is so much. The only question is whether we in the US will share in the wealth. We do that by building the Keystone XL in order to become the primary refiner of the Canadian crude.

Poppycock. Tar sands crude is not even economically viable with oil below $100. Not to mention being the primary recipient of the carcinogenic air pollution from that refining and be the one taking all the risk of contaminating our aquifers from pipeline leaks. The only thing we won't get is gasoline, jobs or money from it. They are even going to use Russian Steel to build it. It sounds just perfect doesn't it? I can't believe that Obama will veto it, but he certainly will.
 
Last edited:
Poppycock. Tar sands crude is not even economically viable with oil below $100. Not to mention being the primary recipient of the carcinogenic air pollution from that refining and be the one taking all the risk of contaminating our aquifers from pipeline leaks. The only thing we won't get is gasoline, jobs or money from it. They are even going to use Russian Steel to build it. It sounds just perfect doesn't it? I can't believe that Obama will veto it, but he certainly will.

It's actually profitable at any price above $65/barrel. The refinery that will process the crude already exists. Pipelines are the safest, cleanest means of transport, and since we already have about 185,000 miles of pipelines in the US, 2,000-3,000 more won't add any appreciable risk. A large share (perhaps most) of the refined product will be marketed in the US.
 
Last edited:
It's actually profitable at any price above $65/barrel. The refinery that will process the crude already exists. Pipelines are the safest, cleanest means of transport, and since we already have about 185,000 miles of pipelines in the US, 2,000-3,000 more won't add any appreciable risk. A large share (perhaps most) of the refined product will be marketed in the US.

None of the refined product is to be marketed here, we have no need for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.
I don't suppose you know that the first "Keystone" pipeline had 12 leaks in the first year. That sounds safe to you?
 
Back
Top Bottom