Democrats Strongly Oppose Energy Independence: Stall Keystone Pipline

Because that particular extension runs right above one of the largest freshwater aquifers in the world.

dial it up wrote:

I'll admit I haven't paid any attention to this at all. However, looking at that, why would ANYONE (lib or rep) oppose a more efficient route?

Think of it this way:

Suppose it's the mid 1900's and we were talking about making a new pipeline that helps distribute leaded gas.

People for it say it will help distribution and create jobs.

People against it say it's dangerous in that it kills people and causes brain damage.

But the fight for efficiency wins and they make this pipeline.

Later you find out it really is bad and it is banned for production (as it is now).

Those against the Keystone Pipeline believe the whole process is bad for the earth and do not want to encourage it.

We don't know if the environmentalists are right at this point.

But if so, it would make sense to oppose this.

The mecca of refinement is this country is in the Gulf states which account for less than 5% of refining of tar sands in the US.Why because it is expensive and less profitable and includes a process which most refineries are not set up to do. Additionally it creates multiple byproducts which increase the expense of refinement. With crude prices low why would they change? Building new refineries is extremely expensive - the petro industry invest in extraction not refinement. The jobs you reference simply wont exist I say approve the pipeline and simply tax the fvck out of it and invest those dollars in bio-diesel alternatives.OH and stop handing the petro industry 38 billion dollars a year in corporate welfare.

joedirt wrote:

The libs oppose the pipeline not because they fear the pipeline leaking, but because they are opposed to the process of refining tar sands into a viable product. Unfortunately, with the price of oil where it is at, tar sands are on the table and will go to market regardless of their collective conscience (ironically, they will likely go there in a less efficient manner making the environmental impact even worse). The only question is whether or not we want to create jobs creating the pipeline, refining the product and exporting the product. I don't get the opposition because the resource is going to be exploited at some point in the future anyhow, as demand for oil keeps rising and high yield reserves are diminished.

Keystone is such an ugly farce of a project, and Repubs are more than happy to have Americans bend over backwards so their oil buddies can make some money, while also paying no taxes.

FACTS:

1) Vast majority of this oil is going to Gulf coast and shipped to other countries. To anyone who claims Keystone will lead to oil independence, why shouldn't 100% of the oil be used in the US??

2) Canadians themselves have rejected the pipeline across their own country! Too much environmental risk for a small return. That's why the pipeline is supposed to through the US.

3) The Tar Sands oil is some of the worst in the world, and requires massive chemical processing before it becomes usable.

4) Nearly all of the so-called jobs created are temporary, and would disappear in a couple years.

Issue is moot.

Canadians are already setting records exporting oil to the US (in excess of 3 million barrels a day) using trains and incremental improvements to existing pipelines. They will build a million barrel a day pipeline to New Brunswick whence the oil will be taken by tanker to US Gulf Coast refineries. There is nothing the US can do to stop the extraction of tar sands oil. Keystone is just a convenient excuse for US partisans on both sides to reflexively vent their usual views on things.

DC Wonk wrote:

FACTS:

1) Vast majority of this oil is going to Gulf coast and shipped to other countries. To anyone who claims Keystone will lead to oil independence, why shouldn't 100% of the oil be used in the US??

3) The Tar Sands oil is some of the worst in the world, and requires massive chemical processing before it becomes usable.

3) is the reason for 1). The tar sands cannot be processed in the U.S. due to legal liabilities. It is cheaper to export the processing work to countries that pay workers just a few dollars per day.

I, for one, have an electric vehicle (leaf) which emits ZERO carbon over it's ENTIRE life cycle. What are you doing to help?

Perspective wrote:

Pipelines leak. This is inescapable. It is not unreasonable to want to avoid an environmental scourge.

I'm just glad railcars & 18 wheelers don't leak - since that's how the oil is transported in lieu of a pipeline..

liberal forever wrote:

I, for one, have an electric vehicle (leaf) which emits ZERO carbon over it's ENTIRE life cycle. What are you doing to help?

Where does the electricity come from?

drivel wrote:

BTW, It is illegal to export oil from the United States.

Crude oil, yes. Refined oil - even only slightly refined -, no.

Ask yourself this: can you sleep at night knowing that your vehicle burns petroleum-based fuel? Will your children even have a place to sleep in 40 years because of the selfishness exuded by you and folks like you?

Your vehicle uses electricity from coal and oil burning power plants. Or maybe from nuclear plants. Plus your car's battery is hazardous waste.

I sleep just fine, thank you.

My car is a Leaf and USES no fossil fuels...it's powered by electricity, not petroleum-based gasoline. Thanks.

liberal forever wrote:

My car is a Leaf and USES no fossil fuels...it's powered by electricity, not petroleum-based gasoline. Thanks.

and we all know electricity is magically emitted from pixie dust farting, rainbow colored unicorns

we all know oil was placed in the ground by god. there is an endless supply.

The price of oil on global markets is what determines whether tar sands oil gets extracted. The pipeline will help, but it won't prevent this oil from coming to market.

Crude at $75 is doing more to stop tar sands extraction than any lobbying.

The pipeline is big for Canada. Not so big for the US.

Northern Gateway (to BC) has been stalled for a while.

The Eastern pipeline will probably happen. 3 refineries in Eastern Canada are being refitted to process tar sands.

If we want to protect the earth from fossil fuels, there needs to be an alternative. Nuclear is the best bet, but 3 accidents in the past 35 years is too much from some people. The mining of coal has destroyed more of the environment than nuclear ever will (read, "Death Comes to the Cumberlands"), but these decisions are made based on gut, rather than facts, which are not sexy and do not win elections.

3 is why 1 wrote:

DC Wonk wrote:

FACTS:

1) Vast majority of this oil is going to Gulf coast and shipped to other countries. To anyone who claims Keystone will lead to oil independence, why shouldn't 100% of the oil be used in the US??

3) The Tar Sands oil is some of the worst in the world, and requires massive chemical processing before it becomes usable.

3) is the reason for 1). The tar sands cannot be processed in the U.S. due to legal liabilities. It is cheaper to export the processing work to countries that pay workers just a few dollars per day.

The leaking pipeline in Michigan was carrying tar sand oil. Also I believe the recent expansion of the BP Whiting IN refinery was to handle tar sand crude.

alanson wrote:

Keystone is just a convenient excuse for US partisans on both sides to reflexively vent their usual views on things.

This is really the main point of the whole debate.

And the Democrats are losing politically in this battle as the Republicans are better at getting visceral reactions on this from voters.

So the question for Democrats is:

Is the potential gain from their stance worth the political loss they are having from it?

So the question for Republicans is:

Is the potential gain from their stance worth the political loss they are having from it?