Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

rocket88 · Nov 20, 2014

jonny5 said:
Thats not what the commerce clause was for at all. It was for the federal govt to enforce standard rules to encourage free trade. This issue is not a dispute between states, its a dispute between environmentalists and states/corporations. The issue of getting permission from every landowner to build a pipeline is the companies problem.

It's not about a dispute, it's about the free flow of the pipeline across state borders. That is what the commerce clause is about, is ensuring the flow of commerce across the borders of the states. Otherwise Texas could impose tariffs on anything from Oklahoma. That wouldn't work at all.

rocket88 · Nov 20, 2014

earthworm said:
"Tongue in cheek" but this could cause suffocation, Rocket . I like underground, at least in places ... but this could make the pipeline too expensive , so, its back to the rails and trucks, and a possibility of pollution .

Right, and I'm not that worried about the pollution anyway. If prices drop enough the sands of Alberta at the source will dry up - there will still be oil there, but it won't make economic sense to get it, so the oil companies will stop producing there. I'm also not big on shipping the oil out to China, which will happen anyway, but I don't see how it's in our interest to make it easier.

jonny5 · Nov 20, 2014

rocket88 said:
It's not about a dispute, it's about the free flow of the pipeline across state borders. That is what the commerce clause is about, is ensuring the flow of commerce across the borders of the states. Otherwise Texas could impose tariffs on anything from Oklahoma. That wouldn't work at all.

And thats not what this is about. Its simply about a company acquiring the rights from landowners to build the pipeline. If a landowner says no, that has nothing to do with the federal govt.

Helix · Nov 20, 2014

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

just build the damned thing so that everyone will shut up about it. this is a stupid hill to die on for the Democrats. use it as a bargaining chip, and move the **** on.

Fearandloathing · Nov 20, 2014

rocket88 said:
Right, and I'm not that worried about the pollution anyway. If prices drop enough the sands of Alberta at the source will dry up - there will still be oil there, but it won't make economic sense to get it, so the oil companies will stop producing there. I'm also not big on shipping the oil out to China, which will happen anyway, but I don't see how it's in our interest to make it easier.

That is wrong on so many levels I can't begin to address them.

There is no "price drop", ever, as averaged over the long term oil prices rise amid fluctuation.

The Athabaska Tar Sands have been in operation, profitable, since the 1970's, there is a 100 year life expectancy on the supply. Demand is growing especially in Asia where the viscosity characteristics are very much desired in manufacturing.

The cancellation of Keystone XL 4, this is a small add on to the existing network, will have no affect on the future of Syncrude as plans are now underway to build an all Canadian route.

You know that the Texas end was completed last March right? That this is just a doubling and expansion near the Canadian border?

Nilly · Nov 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
Second, petroleum based energy is going to be an even more critical commodity in the coming decades, and there will be growing tensions between the haves, and have nots. It makes sense to establish the infrastructure and amortize it now, rather than enter into a last minute scramble to secure energy when the issue becomes a major point of economic survival.

This is precisely the reason we should be moving away from it. The next few decades are going to be an absolute clusterf*** when it comes to oil. Why establish infrastructure for a resource that will be incredibly limited when, as people have mentioned, we already have thousands of miles of pipeline? Not to mention the aforementioned tensions betweens have and have nots. We need to look beyond that/

In the next 100 years as fossil fuels run out there will be a paradigm shift in how energy will be generated. I would rather be on the forefront of that then investing so much in oil this late in the game.

ocean515 · Nov 20, 2014

Nilly said:
This is precisely the reason we should be moving away from it. The next few decades are going to be an absolute clusterf*** when it comes to oil. Why establish infrastructure for a resource that will be incredibly limited when, as people have mentioned, we already have thousands of miles of pipeline? Not to mention the aforementioned tensions betweens have and have nots. We need to look beyond that/

In the next 100 years as fossil fuels run out there will be a paradigm shift in how energy will be generated. I would rather be on the forefront of that then investing so much in oil this late in the game.

How about being on the forefront of both? There are other countries in this world that may not be in the position we will be. We will be in a position to help them. Planning for the future doesn't mean you abandon the present. Without the present, the future will never come.

Nilly · Nov 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
How about being on the forefront of both? There are other countries in this world that may not be in the position we will be. We will be in a position to help them. Planning for the future doesn't mean you abandon the present. Without the present, the future will never come.

That's all well and good but we already have miles and miles of oil pipeline, and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure which is already dependent on oil. Maintaining our stake in oil is sensible, but looking forward, investing further into oil is a losing bet. We can't afford, both economically and ecologically, to be on the forefront of both.

ocean515 · Nov 20, 2014

Nilly said:
That's all well and good but we already have miles and miles of oil pipeline, and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure which is already dependent on oil. Maintaining our stake in oil is sensible, but looking forward, investing further into oil is a losing bet. We can't afford, both economically and ecologically, to be on the forefront of both.

Of course we can afford to be on the forefront of both. One assures we have the opportunity to be in the forefront, and the other assures we remain there. As conventional supplies of petroleum dwindle, newer technologies, like those represented by the Keystone pipeline, will become more and more critical.

Ontologuy · Nov 20, 2014

I don't live close by .. and I somewhat support the pipeline.

I don't think the environmental issues are all that real; likely they've been blown out of proportion. It's just a pipe carrying oil, with intermittent pumps each likely equivalent to a diesel truck. Yes, there'll be more pollution, but it will save on the pollution caused by trucking the oil in otherwise. The source environmental concerns are simply exaggerated from what I can see.

The benefits seem to outweigh the costs.

My greatest concern is whether we're still putting effort on hold to create alternative energy sources, and that new oil sources only delay that process.

obvious Child · Nov 20, 2014

americanwoman said:
I live in Nebraska and I've heard so much propaganda about how it wouldn't ever effect the aquifer and on the other side it would destroy it. My thought is that unless there is a 100% chance it could never be compromised why risk it for a foreign company that is also using eminent domain to obtain people's lands to build it on, even those who don't want it. Which brings up another thing I was made aware of recently is the fact the pipeline route crosses into Native Sioux lands. They are a sovereign nation and were not even brought into any discussions, it was routed through their lands with no approval. They have two treaties from our US government giving them that land and it's not right to break that.

We know for a fact that it takes a very small amount of crude oil to contaminate a huge amount of water. That's a big reason why it's frowned upon to kill weeds with motor oil as that motor oil seeps into the ground water, especially well water and can render that water unusable for consumption. LA has spent huge gobs of money on technology to clean up the ground water from former industrial areas. They need the water for human and agricultural purposes and years of contamination by industrial leaks have rendered millions of gallons otherwise unusable. My biggest concern is that parts of the Ogalla aquifer are right below the surface, meaning leaks will quickly contaminate those areas. And by simple osmosis, millions of gallons will get contaminated too. The local Republican leaders were 100% on the money about crying foul because their economies are dependent on that water. In many ways, the Keystone fight is Local Republican vs Federal Republican. That doesn't get mentioned much in the Press. As for the Sioux Lands, that isn't that big of a concern to me as food security is.

The Mark · Nov 22, 2014

AliHajiSheik said:
You are totally misunderstanding things. The Keystone pipeline has nothing to do with Pennsylvania, it is named after the Keystone Oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta. Discussions going on in Pennsylvania are about another pipeline to take Shale Oil from the Marcellus fields to Philadelphia.

The irony of the discussion is that may people are already near a natural gas pipeline: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/images/ngpipelines_map.jpg

ah.

.

lifeisshort · Nov 22, 2014

Nilly said:
This is precisely the reason we should be moving away from it. The next few decades are going to be an absolute clusterf*** when it comes to oil. Why establish infrastructure for a resource that will be incredibly limited when, as people have mentioned, we already have thousands of miles of pipeline? Not to mention the aforementioned tensions betweens have and have nots. We need to look beyond that/

In the next 100 years as fossil fuels run out there will be a paradigm shift in how energy will be generated. I would rather be on the forefront of that then investing so much in oil this late in the game.

Well the goal post moves again. Now people are admitting it will be a hundred years until we run low on oil instead of saying we are running out now. The truth has a way of coming out

Fletch · Nov 22, 2014

americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?

No one wants a pipeline, an interstate, or an airport running through there back yard, but everyone wants oil, roads and air travel. So...

rabbitcaebannog · Nov 22, 2014

No, I do not support it. It can be hazardous, but that is not the only reason. There is no pay off for such risks.

Thrilla · Nov 22, 2014

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, I do not support it. It can be hazardous, but that is not the only reason. There is no pay off for such risks.

there is minimal risk or hazard..transporting by pipeline is THE safest and least hazardous of all the methods of transportation... there is no "better method".
environmental impact is minimal( according to 5 different environmental impact studies, including our own state department)... and the company has agreed to additional safety measures that far surpass federal regulatory standards

it adds about 3 billion a year to our GDP.... and those counties that it runs through will see average gains of 8% in annual tax revenues ( you know, those things that pay for our schools and emergency services?)
and of course... there will be jobs added directly and indirectly.
.

when you take into consideration that the oil will be shipped with or without the pipeline.. it's a no-brainer.... the benefits far exceed the risks, and we'd be complete and utter morons not to run with it.

rabbitcaebannog · Nov 22, 2014

Thrilla said:
there is minimal risk or hazard..transporting by pipeline is THE safest and least hazardous of all the methods of transportation... there is no "better method".
environmental impact is minimal( according to 5 different environmental impact studies, including our own state department)... and the company has agreed to additional safety measures that far surpass federal regulatory standards

it adds about 3 billion a year to our GDP.... and those counties that it runs through will see average gains of 8% in annual tax revenues ( you know, those things that pay for our schools and emergency services?)
and of course... there will be jobs added directly and indirectly.
.

when you take into consideration that the oil will be shipped with or without the pipeline.. it's a no-brainer.... the benefits far exceed the risks, and we'd be complete and utter morons not to run with it.

This is what I got:

5) The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period. The report notes that building the pipeline would support approximately 42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy (that's about 0.02 percent of GDP).

About 3,900 of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs. After two years, once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs. Five takeaways from State Department’s review of the Keystone XL pipeline - The Washington Post

Not worth the potential hazards IMO.

leoborn · Nov 22, 2014

grip said:
It almost passed the current Senate, missing by 1 vote. It will probably definitely pass the 2015 Congress and sit on the President's desk waiting for his veto. But if it creates enough temp jobs and lowering oil prices, in comparison to environmental impact, there will be pressure on Obama to sign it.

Didn't Hillary okay the environment part of it a few years ago when she was SOS?

grip · Nov 22, 2014

leoborn said:
Didn't Hillary okay the environment part of it a few years ago when she was SOS?

I know they said the proposal was being environmentally explored by some committee for the last 2 years. Of course the problem is with possible leaks, not just the pipe installation itself. And most of the initial extra jobs created are only temporary. The particular kind of oil/tar/sand is one of the dirtiest that can be refined or extracted, so it's an environmental mess if the line cracks, which they often can. I think the risk is worth the price reduction for oil and reliance on foreign sources.

Thrilla · Nov 22, 2014

rabbitcaebannog said:
This is what I got:

5) The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period. The report notes that building the pipeline would support approximately 42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy (that's about 0.02 percent of GDP).

About 3,900 of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs. After two years, once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs. Five takeaways from State Department’s review of the Keystone XL pipeline - The Washington Post

Not worth the potential hazards IMO.

not worth "potential" hazards?

what "potential" hazards do you have in mind here?

3 billion a year is nothing to sneeze at....an 8% increase in total county tax revenues from a single source? that's huge.

i'm thinking that your risk v reward standards are irrationally high.... but meh, no worries... the pipeline will be finished.

Jerry · Nov 22, 2014

americanwoman said:
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?

I support the pipeline and I will move to wherever construction of the pipeline is being conducted so as to get my piece of the pie.

I don't own a home for anything to then run through it's backyard.

Jerry · Nov 22, 2014

Redress said:
Not sure. I know the amendment to the bill was proposed. I agree with it. Why should we let Canada ship their oil through the US, with inevitable leaks, only to have them turn around and sell it overseas?

Have to pay for ObamaCare somehow.

rabbitcaebannog · Nov 22, 2014

Thrilla said:
not worth "potential" hazards?

what "potential" hazards do you have in mind here?

3 billion a year is nothing to sneeze at....an 8% increase in total county tax revenues from a single source? that's huge.

i'm thinking that your risk v reward standards are irrationally high.... but meh, no worries... the pipeline will be finished.

Absolutely there are long term potential hazards. Polluting the water supply is just one example but a very big one. The tax revenue is very short term like for what.....a year for the figure you cited? Again, not worth the potential risk the pipeline can pose. What a shame.

Thrilla · Nov 22, 2014

rabbitcaebannog said:
Absolutely there are long term potential hazards. Polluting the water supply is just one example but a very big one. The tax revenue is very short term like for what.....a year for the figure you cited? Again, not worth the potential risk the pipeline can pose. What a shame.

where did you get the wrong idea that they only pay taxes once?

Kansas is providing them with a 10 year tax holiday... all other counties will collect property taxes ( among other taxes)every year... year in, year out.

rabbitcaebannog · Nov 22, 2014

Thrilla said:
where did you get the wrong idea that they only pay taxes once?

Kansas is providing them with a 10 year tax holiday... all other counties will collect property taxes ( among other taxes)every year... year in, year out.

Providing TransCanada a tax holiday for ten years is a good thing for tax revenue...... HOW???

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

I live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

I live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

I do not live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

I do not live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

I am not American and I do NOT support it.

I am not American and I do support it.

I have no opinion.

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

How long is now?

stb

stb

Equal Opportunity Hater

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

Slow 🅖 Hand