• 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 Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

Wind farm funding isn't hurting for cash. The wind industry only exists because of green welfare. How about we support an industry that can actually stand on it's own feet? What's wrong with that?

Part of the problem with that line of thinking is that it completely ignores the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, .... order technology that spawns from undertaking initiatives that are simply not profitable in this current time.

The technology that emerged from the space race was monumental to our current way of life. Everything from communications to manufacturing systems have greatly benefited from taking on a challenge that wouldn't be undertaken due to the enormous cash flow requirements spanned out across decades. Market structures at the present are heavily dependent upon short term profitability, and without public sector input a great deal of current research would go unfunded.

Is it your belief that only profitable endeavors are worthy? Curing cancer vs. treating it is less profitable to big pharma than it is to retail.
 
Part of the problem with that line of thinking is that it completely ignores the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, .... order technology that spawns from undertaking initiatives that are simply not profitable in this current time.

The technology that emerged from the space race was monumental to our current way of life. Everything from communications to manufacturing systems have greatly benefited from taking on a challenge that wouldn't be undertaken due to the enormous cash flow requirements spanned out across decades. Market structures at the present are heavily dependent upon short term profitability, and without public sector input a great deal of current research would go unfunded.

Is it your belief that only profitable endeavors are worthy? Curing cancer vs. treating it is less profitable to big pharma than it is to retail.

The wind indistry has been propped up for several technilogical generations.
 
The wind indistry has been propped up for several technilogical generations.

Even if i concede your point, so what? It still ignores the underlying premise of my reply.

Subsidies for fossil fuels (profitable) are lager than alternatives (less profitable). <--- A second point, to which you may chose to address, but do not need to because it renders your entire POV moot.
 
I am actually surprised that so few democrats stepped up to help a fellow senator in a tight race like this. Keystone will certainly pass once republicans take over, so why couldn't Landrieu get one more person in the senate to step up and help her on this? Either she isn't very popular among her fellow democrats, or they are such hardened ideologues that they were willing to throw her over the side.
 
Part of the problem with that line of thinking is that it completely ignores the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, .... order technology that spawns from undertaking initiatives that are simply not profitable in this current time.

The technology that emerged from the space race was monumental to our current way of life. Everything from communications to manufacturing systems have greatly benefited from taking on a challenge that wouldn't be undertaken due to the enormous cash flow requirements spanned out across decades. Market structures at the present are heavily dependent upon short term profitability, and without public sector input a great deal of current research would go unfunded.

Is it your belief that only profitable endeavors are worthy? Curing cancer vs. treating it is less profitable to big pharma than it is to retail.
I'm shocked also that Apdst is against a cure for cancer.
 
I am actually surprised that so few democrats stepped up to help a fellow senator in a tight race like this. Keystone will certainly pass once republicans take over, so why couldn't Landrieu get one more person in the senate to step up and help her on this? Either she isn't very popular among her fellow democrats, or they are such hardened ideologues that they were willing to throw her over the side.

I think it's because they know she's a lame duck. There's no way she wins in the run off, not even a prayer, and armed with this knowledge they chose to vote the same way they did last year, oh wait, they never voted last year.. ;)

Tim-
 
Even if i concede your point, so what? It still ignores the underlying premise of my reply.

Subsidies for fossil fuels (profitable) are lager than alternatives (less profitable). <--- A second point, to which you may chose to address, but do not need to because it renders your entire POV moot.

1) Oil companies don't get cash subsidies.

2) I wouldn't call wind subsidies un-profitable.

Taxpayers Get Hosed on Duke Energy's Wind Farm Buying Spree | National Legal and Policy Center
 
Here the Pipeline is still very popular. I wonder, could some of the lack of support in your country be due to the plummeting price of oil? I heard big companies are going to start cutting back on fracking due to the price drop. I know Canada is the king of fracking and has become an important import. Here we are on the verge of turning the United States from an energy importer to energy exporter because of fracking. And we did it on private lands. Those who have been in charge in Washington have put every roadblock they could muster to stop fracking on government lands. The increase of oil produced in America making its way into the market is one reason cost for oil has dropped. But if it drops too low companies will have no choice but to stop production. It costs us a lot more to produce that oil and natural gas than what the Saudis do. Some think the Saudis are purposely lowering the price per barrel to kill our new energy boom in its early stages. Nothing would make a greenie weenie happier than to see that happen. But at the same time if oil drops to $45 dollars a barrel all these big investments in alternatives will have folded because they will no longer be able to compete with cheap gas and oil. Does the name Ivanpah ring a bell? It's a company owned by a couple of greenie cronies Google and NRG. Two billion dollars poured into this company much on the taxpayers' dime and it struggles to produce 25% of the energy it claimed it could. And then wanted extentions on its loans and grants to help pay off their debt.
World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan | Fox News
People aren't going to continue to put up with that crap. Especially if they can get oil at such prices and natural gas on the cheap.

No. None of the above.

The American market is of declining interest as the US and Canada have a treaty where Canada guarantees a certain annual amount of petroleum and gas at less than market prices, and with environmental taxes removed - the US refuses to pay a foreign government environmental taxes.

This oil is not intended for the American Market. It is intended for the Chinese market through the gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal.

There is no fracking involved and it isn't a big issue here beyond the sensible shoe/granola crowd. This oil comes from the Athabaska tar fields, thousands of acres of tar infused sand - a no man's land - where they dig it up, use steam to remove the sand and the result is the single most viscous and long lasting lubricants in the world, something the Chinese need a lot.

The report on this vote this morning is that the Republicans , aware that without quick passage this thing dies forever, they will bring it back in January with stuff Obama needs in order to get it passed. If they can do that, it is said the deal will be saved, without it the word is it's dead and Ottawa will green like the Northern Gateway Aurora pipeline.

I wonder though if they can offer enough stuff to save it. If I wanted the deal I would be telling my local rep what you are hearing from Canada as once again your media has got pretty much everything wrong
 
Well, it doesn't really matter where it goes, since oil is a world wide commodity. The more we produce, the better it is for lowering the world wide price. So it does benefit us by putting downward pressure on oil prices. In fact, since futures trading affects the price, just the news of us approving the pipeline would put downward pressure on the price of oil.


My my aren't we naive.
 
And trains derail, and trucks crash and airplanes crash and refineries explode and ships sink...whats your point? Nothing is fool proof. And if we didn't do things because it might fail or break we would do nothing. But my point was, even if there was a certainty that no oil would ever leak from the pipeline, you would still oppose the project. You would simply move on to anther objection. And another. And another. Why? Because these aren't your real objections. Your real objection is ideological.

No it isn't.

I have a friend that is in the oil clean up business. He told me anyone that tells you oil doesn't do damage to our environment is either making lots of money off of oil or is naive.
 
And of course it will, which is why Louisiana is for it. It means work for US refineries as well as the construction and supervision of the pipeline supply jobs. The Unions are for it as are the majority of the American people.

The real question is, is it worth the tradeoff.
 
No. None of the above.

The American market is of declining interest as the US and Canada have a treaty where Canada guarantees a certain annual amount of petroleum and gas at less than market prices, and with environmental taxes removed - the US refuses to pay a foreign government environmental taxes.

This oil is not intended for the American Market. It is intended for the Chinese market through the gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal.

There is no fracking involved and it isn't a big issue here beyond the sensible shoe/granola crowd. This oil comes from the Athabaska tar fields, thousands of acres of tar infused sand - a no man's land - where they dig it up, use steam to remove the sand and the result is the single most viscous and long lasting lubricants in the world, something the Chinese need a lot.

The report on this vote this morning is that the Republicans , aware that without quick passage this thing dies forever, they will bring it back in January with stuff Obama needs in order to get it passed. If they can do that, it is said the deal will be saved, without it the word is it's dead and Ottawa will green like the Northern Gateway Aurora pipeline.

I wonder though if they can offer enough stuff to save it. If I wanted the deal I would be telling my local rep what you are hearing from Canada as once again your media has got pretty much everything wrong
I never stated Canada's crude was intended for the US market. I stated the cost of oil has dropped significantly because of the increase supply that is being provided by the US/Canada. And it is also true that Canada have been using fracking extensively since the 1960's in many parts of the country for gas and oil.
Over the last six years oil exports have increased in this country tremendously and done so on private lands using fracking.
We all know why Reid allowed the vote at this time. It was to help Ms. Mary in Louisiana. Over the last six years until yesterday he has shelved the bill because of fear it would get passed and Obama would have been forced to either sign it or veto. Before it even reached the floor for a vote, the fix was in that it wouldn't pass. After all we have a president who is lock and step with the IPCC and Global Warming. Have you read the latest report coming out of the IPCC, it calls for eliminating fossil fuel usage to 0 globally or we are going to fry. :roll:

I certainly support the extension of Keystone that would go through Montana and N Dakota where they have their own oil boom occurring. The pipeline would not just aid Canada but would assist them in getting their crude to market. But hey Canada doesn't want to wait around until a regime change, I certainly understand that one. With the technology to turn natural gas to a liquid, it would also be great to see more of that occurring and permitted to be moved as an export instead of letting it burn off and wasted. I see Japan and the EU as big customers ending their dependency on Russia. Maybe that will become a reality in the near future with a regime change also.
 
Last edited:
I never stated Canada's crude was intended for the US market. I stated the cost of oil has dropped significantly because of the increase supply that is being provided by the US/Canada.
Over the last six years oil exports have increased in this country tremendously and done so on private lands.
We all know why Reid allowed the vote at this time. It was to help Ms. Mary in Louisiana. Over the last six years until yesterday he has shelved the bill because of fear it would get passed and Obama would have been forced to either sign it or veto. Before it even reached the floor for a vote, the fix was in that it wouldn't pass. After all we have a president who is lock and step with the IPCC and Global Warming. Have you read the latest report coming out of the IPCC, it calls for eliminating fossil fuel usage to 0 globally or we are going to fry. :roll:

I certainly support the extension of Keystone that would go through Montana and N Dakota where they have their own oil boom occurring. The pipeline would not just aid Canada but would assist them in getting their crude to market. But hey Canada doesn't want to wait around until a regime change, I certainly understand that one. With the technology to turn natural gas to a liquid, it would also be great to see more of that occurring and permitted to be moved as an export instead of letting it burn off and wasted. I see Japan and the EU as big customers ending their dependency on Russia. Maybe that will become a reality in the near future with a regime change also.

I did not mean to imply you were uniformed, in fact you're one of few who is. I am getting real sick of informing people that the southern end is completed, people in Texas have been living next to it for almost a year and didn't even know...which should tell you about the real impact.

Price doesn't really matter in the oil industry as they operate on one, three and five year averages, which never go down.

And you are absolutely right about the ministrations of politicking in the senate....but we are hearing Reid was under pressure from his own Democrats, angry and steamed over the mid term losses.

And LNG - liquified natural gas was a major election issue here in 2012 and we won. They have completed their first processing plant and LNG started flowing to China this summer, a second is under construction. We are told the royalties and taxes will pay for our health coverage for many years. There again US wrangling prevented any being built in California or the Gulf.

I hear a lot of talk about Europe wanting off the Russian teat, but they are tanker averse and there is an huge push back. They had a spill in the North Sea a few years back and the eco-queers still have their stool in a knot.

Ironically the situation has reversed. In the 70's and 80's Canada couldn't get anything done, now it's the US and we are "Drill, Baby, Drill"
 
No it isn't.

I have a friend that is in the oil clean up business. He told me anyone that tells you oil doesn't do damage to our environment is either making lots of money off of oil or is naive.
The sooner you come up with a substitute for oil the better then. For now, the US runs on oil. It is the life blood of every industrial society and the thing that makes your first world life possible. The naïve one here is you.
 
Trade-off for what?

Trade off for what??? It is nearly certain that there will be a leak, and the area won't be inhabitable for 100's of miles in all directions for decades. This is oil we are talking about!
 
Trade off for what??? It is nearly certain that there will be a leak, and the area won't be inhabitable for 100's of miles in all directions for decades. This is oil we are talking about!

Nearly certain? That can also mean nearly uncertain.

You seem to be unaware of the safety standards on modern pipelines and your claim of "100's of miles in all directions for decades" is hysterical hyperbole.
 
No it isn't.

I have a friend that is in the oil clean up business. He told me anyone that tells you oil doesn't do damage to our environment is either making lots of money off of oil or is naive.
I have a cousin in the psych biz and she says people often get all worked up over nothing.
 
You seem to be unaware of the safety standards on modern pipelines and your claim of "100's of miles in all directions for decades" is hysterical hyperbole.

The oil industry isn't exactly known for safety standard compliance nor will they be until the consequences for the disasters resulting from non-compliance are made more severe. Unfortunately we live in a society in which shareholders are protected more than the communities they operate in and impact.
 
Last edited:
What I want to know is, why did Harry Reid schedule the vote just to publicly humiliate Mary Landrieu and hang her out to dry.
 
What I want to know is, why did Harry Reid schedule the vote just to publicly humiliate Mary Landrieu and hang her out to dry.

I think dingy thought it would pass and help her. It didn't and she is screwed blued and Landrieud
 
if they don't build it here, they'll just build it somewhere else.

Then let them. We do not need to risk the main water source for millions of people and billions in industry for 30 permanent jobs on a resource that will run out. We can grow crops in the grain belt indefinitely. We cannot drill for oil in Canada's tar sands indefinitely. The oil will run out, those jobs will end and we may have destroyed the livelihoods and food security for millions in the process. That is as bad deal. Short term growth that risks long term sustainability is not a good plan. You should look up TransCanada's construction quality. It's not good. And the water table that the proposed pipeline passes over is right under the surface in many places. A tiny drop of crude can contaminate millions of gallons. And that water feeds the billions of dollars of agriculture in the area annually.

oil is a finite resource, and will eventually be obsolete. my position is that we should utilize the existing political dynamic to hasten that obsolescence. trading the inevitable outcome for gains in renewable and nuclear technologies seems to be the best path forward.

I agree with you on that, but Canada has proven that it can move that oil by rail and by truck. It doesn't need the pipeline. And as long as Saudi Arabia maintains its low oil pricing to hurt Iran (and possibly Shale oil in America), Tar Sands and the pipeline become less economical to them. If there was no other way to move it, then yes we should build it, but Canada has done a good job moving that oil as we dragged our feet. What pushes me even more against the pipeline is that the native tribes in Canada are essentially stopping a West coast export terminal that runs another Valdez risk. So Harper is pushing an Eastern export terminal which is a tad bit more environmentally sound. Canada's got this down, so let's let them handle it in their territory.
 
Back
Top Bottom