Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Fishstyx · Jan 28, 2012

Greenpeace has abandoned its science base foundation. Even one of its founder's support the oil sands extraction based on the land reclamation plan thats been established.

Ex-Greenpeace leader bats for oil sands | Energy | News | Financial Post

MoSurveyor · Jan 28, 2012

Grant said:
I certainly don't. When did that take place?

Freedom fries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
House cafeterias change names for 'french' fries and 'french' toast - CNN

A little humor from the same period: Belgianfries.com

I heard about it a few days after it hit the news when some guy at work was getting razzed for buying French fries at McD's. It was quite the deal here among blue collar workers (pro-Bush).

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Freedom fries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
House cafeterias change names for 'french' fries and 'french' toast - CNN

A little humor from the same period: Belgianfries.com

I heard about it a few days after it hit the news when some guy at work was getting razzed for buying French fries at McD's. It was quite the deal here among blue collar workers (pro-Bush).

So where is the 'social ban'?

It was a silly joke, meant as a silly joke, that never had any long term consequences.

sharon · Jan 28, 2012

Karl said:
I heard that, but even if 'false advertising' is illegal in Canada I think there will be enough wiggle room for TransCanada to escape unscathed (although it would be nice to have the mechanism for their numbers given wider dissemination -- as opposed to the Kool Aid drinkers who are swilling it all at face value).

They should sue Boehner... I saw him on video claim 130,000 jobs :shock:

And Newt said 50,000 jobs..

TransCanada has never explained how they came up with these numbers.

I am guessing 3200 temp jobs and maybe as many as 300-400 permanent jobs.

An oil company that can't move 700,000 barrels a day without a huge work force should get outta the business.

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
And Newt said 50,000 jobs..

TransCanada has never explained how they came up with these numbers.

I am guessing 3200 temp jobs and maybe as many as 300-400 permanent jobs.

An oil company that can't move 700,000 barrels a day without a huge work force should get outta the business.

So the United States doesn't need those 3200 temp jobs or 300-400 permanent jobs, even though they are just your uneducated guesses. And Trans Canada doesn't have to explain anything. Americans should be able to figure out for themselves.

Yours is a rather cavalier approach for a country that is having high unemployment as well as potential long term energy problems. Maybe Stimulus 3 for Synergy might work again.

Or perhaps instead of being first to invent a reliable source of solar energy, why not wait until the Germans or Chinese invent it and then use their technology? Or improve on it? That's what other countries have successfully done.

Of course that would eliminate the opportunities for political payoffs and crony capitalism, which appears to be the main thrust behind all these trillions being spent.

sharon · Jan 28, 2012

Grant said:
So the United States doesn't need those 3200 temp jobs or 300-400 permanent jobs, even though they are just your uneducated guesses. And Trans Canada doesn't have to explain anything. Americans should be able to figure out for themselves.

Yours is a rather cavalier approach for a country that is having high unemployment as well as potential long term energy problems. Maybe Stimulus 3 for Synergy might work again.

Or perhaps instead of being first to invent a reliable source of solar energy, why not wait until the Germans or Chinese invent it and then use their technology? Or improve on it? That's what other countries have successfully done.

Of course that would eliminate the opportunities for political payoffs and crony capitalism, which appears to be the main thrust behind all these trillions being spent.

No .. not guesses.. I have documented it over and over again.

US consumption is going down and domestic production is going up.

Keystone appears to be a boondoggle. We have 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the US and most of it isn't running to capacity.

This 700,000 barrels isn't new oil.. it will just by pass our Mid West refineries.

You can always tell an A$$hole.. its someone who jumps at a chance to be rude without the facts on any subject.

MoSurveyor · Jan 28, 2012

Grant said:
So where is the 'social ban'?

It was a silly joke, meant as a silly joke, that never had any long term consequences.

I guess we just have different definitions. I suppose you'd call making fun of someone with a big nose or overweight a "silly joke", too? Well, some people are like that.

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I guess we just have different definitions. I suppose you'd call making fun of someone with a big nose or overweight a "silly joke", too? Well, some people are like that.

Those are insults directed at an individual which is quite different from joking about freedom fries.

Cheese eating surrender monkeys would be worse than that, as well as all the web sites devoted to laughing at the French. Calling someone fat or claiming they have a big nose doesn't contain any humor at all.

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
sharon said:

No .. not guesses.. I have documented it over and over again.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I never saw your previous documentations. I suppose I only saw those which were far more optimistic.

US consumption is going down and domestic production is going up.

Click to expand...

Great. Soon you'll be completely energy efficient.

Keystone appears to be a boondoggle. We have 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the US and most of it isn't running to capacity.

Click to expand...

You're probably right.

This 700,000 barrels isn't new oil.. it will just by pass our Mid West refineries.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

You can always tell an A$$hole.. its someone who jumps at a chance to be rude without the facts on any subject.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

sharon · Jan 28, 2012

I think petroleum will be around for a while even if we diversify in terms of local sources like coal and Hydro.. or local applications like solar...

But our imports have gone from nearly 60% to 49%..

IMO you can't plan a long term strategy that is successful if your neighbors are put in jeopardy... and for now Canada is importing 43 to 55% of their crude oil from OPEC ..

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
I think petroleum will be around for a while even if we diversify in terms of local sources like coal and Hydro.. or local applications like solar...

But our imports have gone from nearly 60% to 49%..

IMO you can't plan a long term strategy that is successful if your neighbors are put in jeopardy... and for now Canada is importing 43 to 55% of their crude oil from OPEC ..

Well it's good to hear that you have a long term strategy.

sharon · Jan 28, 2012

Grant said:
Well it's good to hear that you have a long term strategy.

Don't you think the US should have a long term strategy?

Certainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar do.......

Or are we too busy bashing each other and playing partisan politics?

Grant · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
Don't you think the US should have a long term strategy?

Certainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar do.......

Or are we too busy bashing each other and playing partisan politics?

No, I don't believe the US has a long term energy strategy but I don't care to debate people's beliefs. It's like debating personal faith.

I think we're just bashing each other and although I'm just as guilty as the next person, sometimes it just gets too tiresome. I don't do that in my real life so there is little reason why should I do it here.

Karl · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
[...] Keystone appears to be a boondoggle. [...] This 700,000 barrels isn't new oil.. it will just by pass our Mid West refineries. [...]

Very interesting. However, it certainly doesn't seem to be a boondoggle -- it seems to be a way for the oil companies to make more money, out of the pockets of American consumers of course. No wonder the GOP loves it :mrgreen:

Here is a summary some of the [NRDC] report’s findings:

Keystone XL is a pipeline through the United States, not to it. The vast majority of Canada’s export pipelines go to refineries in the U.S. Midwest. These refineries sell gasoline, diesel and motor oil to American consumers. Keystone XL will divert up to 830,000 barrels a day of oil from the Midwest, sending it instead to the Gulf Coast and the international market.

Keystone XL will increase Midwestern oil prices. [...] TransCanada has acknowledges this, estimating that Keystone XL would increase the price the United States paid for Canadian crude by between $2 billion and $3.9 billion a year.

New report: Keystone XL will undermine U.S. energy security | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC (links to the actual report included therein)

This makes the overstated jobs claims rather irrelevant:

Entrepreneur to small western town, circa 1880: "I want to bring a dozen new jobs to your town!"
Town council: "Great! Doing what?"
Entrepreneur: "Building a series of gallows"
Town council: "Whatcha going to do with those when you get 'em built?"
Entrepreneur: "Hang all of you" :shock:

Karl · Jan 28, 2012

sharon said:
[...] IMO you can't plan a long term strategy that is successful if your neighbors are put in jeopardy... and for now Canada is importing 43 to 55% of their crude oil from OPEC ..

I think you'll find that humanitarian concern for others doesn't make an appearance on the GOP's Top Ten List. . . . .

j-mac · Jan 28, 2012

Wait a minute.....Did I read that sharon was criticizing TC pipeline over jobs she supposes were estimated, when our government under the non leadership of Obama the incompetent, loves to tout the supposed "jobs" they "created" or "saved"???

You have GOT to be kidding me.

j-mac

Karl · Jan 29, 2012

j-mac said:
Wait a minute.....Did I read that sharon was criticizing TC pipeline over jobs she supposes were estimated, when our government under the non leadership of Obama the incompetent, loves to tout the supposed "jobs" they "created" or "saved"???

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Based upon your post, I think you mostly kid yourself. However, creating a few thousand temporary jobs that would result in higher gasoline prices for Americans in the Midwest for, essentially, perpetuity, doesn't really seem like a good deal to me. Does it to you?

sharon · Jan 29, 2012

j-mac said:
Wait a minute.....Did I read that sharon was criticizing TC pipeline over jobs she supposes were estimated, when our government under the non leadership of Obama the incompetent, loves to tout the supposed "jobs" they "created" or "saved"???

You have GOT to be kidding me.

j-mac

We are being played over our unemployment situation..

If these rubes think there will be more than few hundred permnent jobs... they dont know a think about oil refineries.

As for construction workers.. Do you know the term job years? The crews will work six months and move on... It won't be 4,000 jobs for two years.

j-mac · Jan 29, 2012

sharon said:
We are being played over our unemployment situation..

If these rubes think there will be more than few hundred permnent jobs... they dont know a think about oil refineries.

As for construction workers.. Do you know the term job years? The crews will work six months and move on... It won't be 4,000 jobs for two years.

Nonsense. The businesses that create other jobs in a boom town type of scenerio are permanent jobs. Look, your guy was saying that people hired to hold a stop sign for one damned day, laid off, then re hired the next week was two jobs created in his stimulus rip off. And you have the gall to say what you are saying? What do you do for a living Sharon, if I may ask?

j-mac

Karl · Jan 29, 2012

j-mac said:
[...] What do you do for a living Sharon, if I may ask?

Don't answer that question. It's irrelevant, none of his business, and it will probably be used now, and in the future, to launch personal attacks against you.

Trolling for personal info in discussion forums is very, very bad form.

Grant · Jan 30, 2012

Karl said:
Don't answer that question. It's irrelevant, none of his business, and it will probably be used now, and in the future, to launch personal attacks against you.

Trolling for personal info in discussion forums is very, very bad form.

Nonsense!

Posters often give their areas of expertise in order to support whatever argument they may be making, and this information may or may not be credible. It happens daily.

To make the claim that a poster (with a good reputation btw) would use this information inappropriately is a dirty charge and one without any substance whatsoever. The question was obviously asked out of curiosity and nothing more.

sharon · Jan 30, 2012

j-mac said:
Nonsense. The businesses that create other jobs in a boom town type of scenerio are permanent jobs. Look, your guy was saying that people hired to hold a stop sign for one damned day, laid off, then re hired the next week was two jobs created in his stimulus rip off. And you have the gall to say what you are saying? What do you do for a living Sharon, if I may ask?

j-mac

Look up "job years".. The construction jobs are temporary as they move from place to place. For a while local restaurants, boarding houses, motels will be busy at least until that section of the pipeline is completed and the crews move on.

I am retired....

Gill · Jan 30, 2012

Lord Tammerlain said:
Fail again

I was waiting for you to say that

Perhaps someone other then myself should read the table of data fully and completely including the notes. Like this one

**Raw bitumen numbers are highlighted. The oil sands production numbers (as historically published) are a combination of upgraded crude oil and bitumen and therefore incorporate yield losses from
integrated upgrader projects. Production from off-site upgrading projects are included in the production numbers as bitumen

You see that note is highlighting the entire raw oil sands production, which is larger then the number in the table for oil sands production because it is the raw production and does not account for the loss's during upgrading, and as such is not avaliable for sale.

In the upgrading process they loss 146 thousand barrels of oil which takes the number from 1.616 mpd to 1.470 mbp

I suggest when you read things you read them fully, the notes typically are very important to understand what the table is stating, and by not reading and understanding it you misread the table, making an inaccurate assumption which caused you to believe Canada is producing 1.5 million barrels per day that it is not

Actually, I got my information originally from Wikipedia. They got theirs from the CIA Factbook, a very reputable and accurate source. The Canadian daily production of 3.289 million BPD was from 2009.

Both agreed with the number I posted, so I went with it.

I'll stick to the number I posted.

sharon · Jan 30, 2012

Gill said:
Actually, I got my information originally from Wikipedia. They got theirs from the CIA Factbook, a very reputable and accurate source. The Canadian daily production of 3.289 million BPD was from 2009.

Both agreed with the number I posted, so I went with it.

I'll stick to the number I posted.

Not much, is it? How much crude oil does Canada import from OPEC?

Gill · Jan 30, 2012

sharon said:
Not much, is it?

At today's prices, it's about $329 million dollars per day. Sounds like "much" to me, at least enough to make them number 6 in world production.

It's about half of the U.S. daily production.

How much crude oil does Canada import from OPEC?

Don't know, don't care.

Has nothing to do with the topic.