• 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!

Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

Do you have a non-partisan opinion as to why Obama is stalling on this? A reason, not a rant please. Even if you disagree with the reason - what is the actual reason (in Obama's view)? Do you know? Does anybody?


I do. It's because Americans now want something for nothing, believing it will just magically appear and that someone owes it to them. They want what that oil provides, they want the jobs of it and they want economic wealth. But they want it all for free.

So they don't want the bother of a pipeline or risks of one. So Obama has - again - sold Americans that they can have something for nothing - to give up the oil and still have it.

The radical "greenies" will explain "oil is a global market," so it will come back here anyway after refined elsewhere - and those jobs elsewhere. Then we only risk mass environmental damage of a tanker sinking, have to pay markups for loading it, shipping to that foreign refinery, pay to load it back on a ship, and pay to off load it back here. So no jobs. Twice the price.

Of course, the foreign country it is going to is on another planet, so if there is an oil spill on their land it will not affect earth - and since all waters of the oceans continuously are flowing away from the United States, no oil tanker sinking could possibly harm us. Rather, it would float on top of the ocean flowing until it fell off the end of the flat earth into space.

Those are the reasons.
 
This is not your average, everyday oil--if there was a spill or a leak, it does not rise to the top where they could skim it off--it sinks and is practically impossible to clean up...
 
Well we may not have another market to sell it to as pipelines in our country are facing opposition due to environmental concerns as the Harper government continues to cut environmental oversight. Currently rail is how oil is being transported and as you should know it has proved to be disastrous as the Harper government cut regulation of that to.
 
Well we may not have another market to sell it to as pipelines in our country are facing opposition due to environmental concerns as the Harper government continues to cut environmental oversight. Currently rail is how oil is being transported and as you should know it has proved to be disastrous as the Harper government cut regulation of that to.

I am not opposing the keystone pipeline due to environmental concerns. I oppose it due to the fact the company is using eminent domain to get what they want. No company should be allowed to use eminent domain especially a foreign owned company.
 
How many of you know we now have 55,000 miles of oil pipelines in the United States already. With that many miles of pipelines what is another 2-3,000 miles worth?

How Many Pipelines are There?
 
Central Alberta hydrocarbon upgrading projects are booming:
Project Status
from
Alberta's Industrial Heartland
Edmonton Journal Article

The hydrogen plant is done ( to upgrade the Ft Mac oilsands ), when upgraded a lot easier to ship, more options for markets.

It's a fairly large boom, labour shortage is throttling it a bit, quite a few good paying job - help wanted -roadside billboard rental signs out, not enough workers. Airports , road and rail expanding.

They'll tie into the existing oil pipelines south after upgrading, for now. Keystone ( or equivelant ) will get built within a decade, irrespective of the politics.
 
Building the pipeline does not garentee access to the oil.

and it won't create jobs for everyone, only those with knowledge of working oil rigs and piplines.

it is only a fig leaf.
Well we shouldn't build hospitals, it only creates jobs for rich doctors and nurses... or Schools at it only employs teachers... what a silly statement you make.
 
Seems like a circuitous route to go about destroying America. Why not start a nuclear war or something more definitive?

The answer shouod be obvious.
 
The answer shouod be obvious.

If all answers are obvious, why are we even here? To throw out snappy one liners? I've seen you post intelligent analysis and I've seen you post useless replies. So how about answering the question or don't bother responding.

"The answer should be obvious" is no answer at all. You're just being insulting. And I suspect it is because you don't have a clue what the answer is. You just want to post "I hate Obama" over and over again. How utterly boring.

I'm an adult and I've never blown you off or demeaned you. How about some respect or lets just put each other on ignore and you can find someone more of your maturity level to have one sentence discourse with.
 
How terrible! Exported oil that reduces the price of oil on the world market - just terrible!

If it happens then its good that it's going to be exported and yes we have a global energy market, but that crude and gas will be more expensive due to transportation costs and the circuitous route. I've also heard they are talking about opening a rail option which would compound that problem. The pipeline is the best course for Canada and the United States and every policy maker knows it but doesn't feel like they have the cover to jump at it. Though it looks like this may finally be moving.
 
If all answers are obvious, why are we even here? To throw out snappy one liners? I've seen you post intelligent analysis and I've seen you post useless replies. So how about answering the question or don't bother responding.

"The answer should be obvious" is no answer at all. You're just being insulting. And I suspect it is because you don't have a clue what the answer is. You just want to post "I hate Obama" over and over again. How utterly boring.

I'm an adult and I've never blown you off or demeaned you. How about some respect or lets just put each other on ignore and you can find someone more of your maturity level to have one sentence discourse with.

Obama is knowingly harming the country. How do you explain it?
 
Obama is knowingly harming the country. How do you explain it?

That is exactly the question that I asked you. If you'll answer the question I'll give you an intelligent response and might very well agree with you. But if you are just turning the question back to me, we won't be going anywhere.
 
You almost nailed it. I mean really nailed it. One of the primary opponents to the Keystone project is a guy named Warren Buffet who sleeps over at the white house once in a while and has the bama-ear. Warren really thinks the pipeline stinks and is horrible, but he isn't an environmentalist - he's an opportunist. His trains carry oil!


If it happens then its good that it's going to be exported and yes we have a global energy market, but that crude and gas will be more expensive due to transportation costs and the circuitous route. I've also heard they are talking about opening a rail option which would compound that problem. The pipeline is the best course for Canada and the United States and every policy maker knows it but doesn't feel like they have the cover to jump at it. Though it looks like this may finally be moving.
 
That is exactly the question that I asked you. If you'll answer the question I'll give you an intelligent response and might very well agree with you. But if you are just turning the question back to me, we won't be going anywhere.

First, you must ask an intelligent, relevant question.
 
First, you must ask an intelligent, relevant question.

Lets try one more time. I asked:
Do you have a non-partisan opinion as to why Obama is stalling on this? A reason, not a rant please. Even if you disagree with the reason - what is the actual reason (in Obama's view)? Do you know? Does anybody?

You responded: To destroy America. That's why

So I asked: Seems like a circuitous route to go about destroying America. Why not start a nuclear war or something more definitive?

So, lets start over. Why would Obama want to "destroy" (your words) America? Change America or Socialize America, you might have a case. But destroy - why would a) he even want to do that and b) if he did, why use such an obscure method such as delaying a pipeline?

If my question is not relevant or intelligent enough to satisfy you, then please don't bother responding. I'm trying to have a useful and civilized conversation. I'm sure as hell no Obama fan but my personal distaste for him does not invalidate my questions.
 
Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B | Fox News

Jobs, wealth, energy. Things we lose with that idiot in the White House.

Rarely has so much been made out of so little.

Will Keystone XL Pipeline Create Many Construction Jobs? | Energy Economy | LiveScience

Why do you want this toxic sludge traveling through the US to create 50 permanent jobs and 4,000 temporary jobs? A good highway bill would do much more for America; short-term and more importantly, long-term.

It's Canadian sludge.... its about time they take the risk of piping through their Rockies...
 
Rarely has so much been made out of so little.

Will Keystone XL Pipeline Create Many Construction Jobs? | Energy Economy | LiveScience

Why do you want this toxic sludge traveling through the US to create 50 permanent jobs and 4,000 temporary jobs? A good highway bill would do much more for America; short-term and more importantly, long-term.

It's Canadian sludge.... its about time they take the risk of piping through their Rockies...
I see, you are willfully ignorant! You think it's a "Build the pipe and that's it?" The oil gets refined,m the pipe has to be maintained... it has to be loaded on to ships... ya know, those long term things people like you ignore.
 
What is the big deal? So the pipeline does not go through...so what?

Oil can be shipped by rail at a cost (by my understanding) not that much greater then by pipeline.

And if Canada sends the oil to it's west coast and ships it from there, who is to say it won't ship some/much/most of it to America?

Sure, a pipeline is convenient...but it also forces Canada to further depend on America for it's economy. Were I the Canadian PM, I would either forget the pipeline OR encourage both the Keystone and one to the west coast...keep my options open.
From what I understand, Canada's oil production is going to grow hugely over the next few years...why should they limit their market to - in essence - just America?
 
Central Alberta hydrocarbon upgrading projects are booming:
Project Status
from
Alberta's Industrial Heartland
Edmonton Journal Article

The hydrogen plant is done ( to upgrade the Ft Mac oilsands ), when upgraded a lot easier to ship, more options for markets.

It's a fairly large boom, labour shortage is throttling it a bit, quite a few good paying job - help wanted -roadside billboard rental signs out, not enough workers. Airports , road and rail expanding.

They'll tie into the existing oil pipelines south after upgrading, for now. Keystone ( or equivelant ) will get built within a decade, irrespective of the politics.

There's speculation about Tuk being a viable deep-water port one day. You might have a MacKenzie Valley pipeline comin' your way.
Pretty warm for January up by you, I hear.
 
If those with this knowledge are currently unemployed, would it not be better to have policies that would re-employ them?

Actually there is a HUGE upswing in oil rigs and employment in the oil patch- from the Dakotas, to Oklahoma and Texas due to fracking and the upsurge in use of Natural gas. Refineries are not shutting down, the pipeline system for NG is being expanded and upgraded.

The pipeline will have no real permanent employment affect, well maybe for toxic waste disposal.
 
I do. It's because Americans now want something for nothing, believing it will just magically appear and that someone owes it to them. They want what that oil provides, they want the jobs of it and they want economic wealth. But they want it all for free. So they don't want the bother of a pipeline or risks of one. So Obama has - again - sold Americans that they can have something for nothing - to give up the oil and still have it. The radical "greenies" will explain "oil is a global market," so it will come back here anyway after refined elsewhere - and those jobs elsewhere. Then we only risk mass environmental damage of a tanker sinking, have to pay markups for loading it, shipping to that foreign refinery, pay to load it back on a ship, and pay to off load it back here. So no jobs. Twice the price. Of course, the foreign country it is going to is on another planet, so if there is an oil spill on their land it will not affect earth - and since all waters of the oceans continuously are flowing away from the United States, no oil tanker sinking could possibly harm us. Rather, it would float on top of the ocean flowing until it fell off the end of the flat earth into space. Those are the reasons.

You sure seem intent on making up 'facts'.

There is no shortage of 'good' crude to refine, there will be no new refineries built for the sludge. capacity in refining will be diverted to handle the tar sludge. The oil will not come back to the USofA until it is turned into cheap consumer crap in China. China needs oil and damn sure will not refine it to send it to us- they will USE it.

So a tanker sinking is mass environmental damage- then you agree that deep water offshore drilling runs the same massive risk? The BP oil spill in the Gulf was a HUGE disaster?

Now when it comes to oil at twice the price- the process to make tar sands 'flow' in a pipeline, the chemicals to strip the tar from the sands, liquefy the tar and then must be removed at the Gulf refineries are not 'free'. You seem intent on making the toxic sludge seem cheap, it isn't.
 
I see, you are willfully ignorant! You think it's a "Build the pipe and that's it?" The oil gets refined,m the pipe has to be maintained... it has to be loaded on to ships... ya know, those long term things people like you ignore.

No, there just aren't that many jobs there. Did you read the article? Do you have an appropriate counter or are we just arguing my substantiated assertions v your impressions? Talk about ignorance? If you think otherwise. lets see the goods. What is the basis of your claim that this is worthy of congressional time and attention vis-a-vis other things they could do to create jobs?

Sorry, but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, my evidence says this is not a substantial job creator.


(getting tired of these people that have no game)....
 
Last edited:
No, there just aren't that many jobs there. Did you read the article? Do you have an appropriate counter or are we just arguing my substantiated assertions v your impressions? Talk about ignorance? If you think otherwise. lets see the goods. What is the basis of your claim that this is worthy of congressional time and attention vis-a-vis other things they could do to create jobs?

Sorry, but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, my evidence says this is not a substantial job creator.


(getting tired of these people that have no game)....

You dont care about the jobs, do you? Not enough for you? Wealth, jobs going elsewhere and you dont care why? Because if what
 
Back
Top Bottom