Debunking Keystone Pipeline Myths

[chikenwing]

jmo, but the admin's decision seems to be based upon the canadian oil requiring more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction. So, it becomes a political football. The dems want to hide the fact that their opposition is Goreish, and the gop wants to hide the fact that the pipeline won't make it cheaper to full your tank.

Not sure,but JOBS seem to be the prevalent theme in this tread,not fuel prices.

LOL. There just aren't that many long term jobs. If the TPM wants a jobs program, how about fixing the damn interstates from NYC to Richmond, so you can drive the damn road at 50mph minimum.

So don't bother?? LOL there are plenty of jobs involved,plenty. The shape our roads are in is criminal,the amount of taxes collected in ny we should have no bad roads,where has the money gone?

 

[BlindBoo]

jmo, but the admin's decision seems to be based upon the canadian oil requiring more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction. So, it becomes a political football. The dems want to hide the fact that their opposition is Goreish, and the gop wants to hide the fact that the pipeline won't make it cheaper to full your tank.

Just how did the administration come to the conclusion that Canadian oil requires more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction?

The GOP isn't arguing that it will drive down gas prices at the pump, we're arguing that it will created thousands of much needed jobs. However common wisdom is that when the supply is larger than the demand, prices will decrease.

All told, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? - Scientific American

".... greenhouse gas emissions will, if anything, go down. Any oil that come from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market right now, and that would likely be heavy crude oil from Venezuela that actually results in more carbon dioxide emissions than tar sands oil.

Why It's Fine That Obama Didn't Mention Tar Sands | MIT Technology Review

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't understand... a lot of liberals tout alternative forms of energy, but most of them drive carbon emitting vehicles. They push solar energy, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy, but live off an electrical grid powered by coal.

It's like Micheal Moore saying "I HATE CAPITALISM" but taking advantage of it for his everyday needs. Which he obviously does. Liberals contribute just as much to pollution as Conservatives do, yet when they are in power they do nothing but whine about it.

 

[OKTexas]

America needs Keystone for the jobs. Period. End of story. Why is this so difficult to understand?

We need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil to Texas to be refined and sold on the world market, that will produce long term jobs in the U.S.? Seems more likely to produce profits for the power elite, put regular folks at risk and cheaper energy to Europe and Asia.

Here's an idea. Let's build pipelines from the Northern states to the Southwest and transport water to grow food in the arid desserts of the South. In doing so, and connecting pipelines to canals we can move goods cheaply among communities and the states, provide recreational activities along the way (kayak, canoe, fishing, lakes, camp grounds, etc.) and reduce the risk of floods and droughts.

What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.

 

[OKTexas]

Debunking 5 Keystone pipeline myths - The Week



1. Keystone will define Obama's legacy on climate change. The West Wing has a much different view: The real contributor to global warming is carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is using regulations to close scores of these polluters. Other power plants are quickly switching to natural gas, which still has a carbon footprint, but not nearly as bad as coal. Obama also likes to boast of doubling renewable energy and higher mileage standards for vehicles. Even if he were to approve Keystone (a final decision is still perhaps a year away), he'll try and trade it for something else the green crowd is clamoring for, perhaps an end to $4 billion in oil industry subsidies.

2. America needs Keystone's oil. We really don't. Production in the U.S. has surged to record levels on Obama's watch, while imports have fallen sharply. As recently as 2008, we imported 9.8 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2012 that number had fallen to 8.5 million barrels. And we're now on track to pass Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer in the next two years or so — with or without Keystone.

3. Keystone's oil will be used here at home. This is one of the bigger canards. We're awash in gasoline now and can't use all have — which explains why refiners are exporting it by the boatload, literally. Refined products like gasoline and jet fuel are now one of America's biggest exports; we even send gasoline to the Middle East. Such exports have tripled in the last decade.

4. America needs Keystone because gasoline prices are at an all-time high. Sigh. Such ignorance. Gasoline prices (AAA national average) peaked in the United States at $4.11 in July 2008, six months before Obama became president. That's about $4.60 in today's dollars. But wasn't gasoline just $1.85 or so when Obama took over? Yes, because it plunged 55 percent as the U.S. economy collapsed in the fall of 2008. As the economy has recovered, restoring demand, prices have risen about 77 percent to Sunday's AAA average of $3.28.

5. Obama is to blame for gasoline prices. If you blame Obama for gasoline prices rising 77 percent in five years, then who do you blame for it rising 179 percent from 2002 to 2008? When George W. Bush took took office, Americans paid about $1.47 a gallon; by July 2008 it hit $4.11 (again, about $4.60 adjusted today for inflation).Oil and refined products like gasoline are global commodities; to suggest that any one man — be it Obama or Bush — can dictate prices is nonsense. It was disingenuous for Democrats to play the blame game then, and it's equally lame for Republicans to do so now.

AND? Where's the justification not to build it? All I see here is a shit load of deflection and the left admitting that my dollar is worth 13% less in the last 5 years.

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[tinydancer]

From MIT to address green house gas emissions. And this information is out there in scientific circles.

Begs the question. Why the hell isn't anyone protesting imports from Venezuela?

It’s just as well that the president didn’t go into it, because it doesn’t really matter that much. It won’t increase greenhouse gas emissions, says Chris Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT.

For one thing, Knittel argues, even if Keystone XL isn’t built, a tar sands pipeline of some sort is bound to be built—there’s just too much money ($32 million a day [the original version had a typo and read “billion”]) to be made from building one to think that it won’t happen.

Whatever pipeline is built, it won’t actually increase oil production much, he says, because it will have only a tiny impact on the world oil market. It may lower prices a little, but not enough to increase demand. And if oil demand isn’t going to go up, neither are greenhouse gas emissions.

Actually, he says, if we build Keystone XL, greenhouse gas emissions will, if anything, go down. Any oil that come from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market right now, and that would likely be heavy crude oil from Venezuela that actually results in more carbon dioxide emissions than tar sands oil.

Why It's Fine That Obama Didn't Mention Tar Sands | MIT Technology Review

 

[Lonestar_logic]

jmo, but the admin's decision seems to be based upon the canadian oil requiring more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction. So, it becomes a political football. The dems want to hide the fact that their opposition is Goreish, and the gop wants to hide the fact that the pipeline won't make it cheaper to full your tank.

Just how did the administration come to the conclusion that Canadian oil requires more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction?

The GOP isn't arguing that it will drive down gas prices at the pump, we're arguing that it will created thousands of much needed jobs. However common wisdom is that when the supply is larger than the demand, prices will decrease.

All told, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? - Scientific American

".... greenhouse gas emissions will, if anything, go down. Any oil that come from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market right now, and that would likely be heavy crude oil from Venezuela that actually results in more carbon dioxide emissions than tar sands oil.

Why It's Fine That Obama Didn't Mention Tar Sands | MIT Technology Review

Oh I forgot about the global warming myth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Debunking 5 Keystone pipeline myths - The Week



1. Keystone will define Obama's legacy on climate change. The West Wing has a much different view: The real contributor to global warming is carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is using regulations to close scores of these polluters. Other power plants are quickly switching to natural gas, which still has a carbon footprint, but not nearly as bad as coal. Obama also likes to boast of doubling renewable energy and higher mileage standards for vehicles. Even if he were to approve Keystone (a final decision is still perhaps a year away), he'll try and trade it for something else the green crowd is clamoring for, perhaps an end to $4 billion in oil industry subsidies.

2. America needs Keystone's oil. We really don't. Production in the U.S. has surged to record levels on Obama's watch, while imports have fallen sharply. As recently as 2008, we imported 9.8 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2012 that number had fallen to 8.5 million barrels. And we're now on track to pass Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer in the next two years or so — with or without Keystone.

3. Keystone's oil will be used here at home. This is one of the bigger canards. We're awash in gasoline now and can't use all have — which explains why refiners are exporting it by the boatload, literally. Refined products like gasoline and jet fuel are now one of America's biggest exports; we even send gasoline to the Middle East. Such exports have tripled in the last decade.

4. America needs Keystone because gasoline prices are at an all-time high. Sigh. Such ignorance. Gasoline prices (AAA national average) peaked in the United States at $4.11 in July 2008, six months before Obama became president. That's about $4.60 in today's dollars. But wasn't gasoline just $1.85 or so when Obama took over? Yes, because it plunged 55 percent as the U.S. economy collapsed in the fall of 2008. As the economy has recovered, restoring demand, prices have risen about 77 percent to Sunday's AAA average of $3.28.

5. Obama is to blame for gasoline prices. If you blame Obama for gasoline prices rising 77 percent in five years, then who do you blame for it rising 179 percent from 2002 to 2008? When George W. Bush took took office, Americans paid about $1.47 a gallon; by July 2008 it hit $4.11 (again, about $4.60 adjusted today for inflation).Oil and refined products like gasoline are global commodities; to suggest that any one man — be it Obama or Bush — can dictate prices is nonsense. It was disingenuous for Democrats to play the blame game then, and it's equally lame for Republicans to do so now.

AND? Where's the justification not to build it? All I see here is a shit load of deflection and the left admitting that my dollar is worth 13% less in the last 5 years.

Still waiting for an answer.

This is why they don't have one:

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf

 

[bendog]

Not sure,but JOBS seem to be the prevalent theme in this tread,not fuel prices.

LOL. There just aren't that many long term jobs. If the TPM wants a jobs program, how about fixing the damn interstates from NYC to Richmond, so you can drive the damn road at 50mph minimum.

So don't bother?? LOL there are plenty of jobs involved,plenty. The shape our roads are in is criminal,the amount of taxes collected in ny we should have no bad roads,where has the money gone?

Ok, have it your way. For Obama's supporters a 14% increase in greenhouse gasses per gallon of oil is not worth ... what, take the big number 15K construction and 8000 service jobs and what .... 15k to expand a port. We're adding 100k jobs in a bad month.

It's about greenhouse gas proponents and doubters, and neither side can afford politically to tell the truth.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just how did the administration come to the conclusion that Canadian oil requires more greenhouse gasses than "traditional" oil extraction?

The GOP isn't arguing that it will drive down gas prices at the pump, we're arguing that it will created thousands of much needed jobs. However common wisdom is that when the supply is larger than the demand, prices will decrease.

All told, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? - Scientific American

".... greenhouse gas emissions will, if anything, go down. Any oil that come from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market right now, and that would likely be heavy crude oil from Venezuela that actually results in more carbon dioxide emissions than tar sands oil.

Why It's Fine That Obama Didn't Mention Tar Sands | MIT Technology Review

Oh I forgot about the global warming myth.

I support the building the pipeline. It is not as bad as the heavy crude we import from Venezuela, as the MIT article points out. Probably less that the deep wells that we are drilling and producing now. The deeper you go the more sulfur you find in the crude oil. Many of the refineries in Texas are tooled to handle the heavy crude and they are not running at capacity now.

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL. There just aren't that many long term jobs. If the TPM wants a jobs program, how about fixing the damn interstates from NYC to Richmond, so you can drive the damn road at 50mph minimum.

So don't bother?? LOL there are plenty of jobs involved,plenty. The shape our roads are in is criminal,the amount of taxes collected in ny we should have no bad roads,where has the money gone?

Ok, have it your way. For Obama's supporters a 14% increase in greenhouse gasses per gallon of oil is not worth ... what, take the big number 15K construction and 8000 service jobs and what .... 15k to expand a port. We're adding 100k jobs in a bad month.

It's about greenhouse gas proponents and doubters, and neither side can afford politically to tell the truth.

That 14% is not really an accurate measure, it's an average. The MIT article posted in a couple of places explains it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

America needs Keystone for the jobs. Period. End of story. Why is this so difficult to understand?

We need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil to Texas to be refined and sold on the world market, that will produce long term jobs in the U.S.? Seems more likely to produce profits for the power elite, put regular folks at risk and cheaper energy to Europe and Asia.

Here's an idea. Let's build pipelines from the Northern states to the Southwest and transport water to grow food in the arid desserts of the South. In doing so, and connecting pipelines to canals we can move goods cheaply among communities and the states, provide recreational activities along the way (kayak, canoe, fishing, lakes, camp grounds, etc.) and reduce the risk of floods and droughts.

What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.

Sure you can, it's simply a matter of building coalitions and seeking win-win solutions. Today we are engaged in never ending zero sum games. Let's think outside the box: Consider the massive amount of snow and ice currently being stored so it can be flushed down storm drains throughout the Midwest and north east. What if we had means to transport the snow, ice and spring flood waters to the Great Planes, West Texas, New Mexico, Eastern Colorado, Utah, and Arizona? Filling man made lakes and underground storage caverns for farming and recreation. Expensive, yep. Would building and maintaining such a project create jobs? Yep.

Did you know the Chicago River's flow was reversed. The Erie Canal was built finished in 1825; and the Roman Empire created aqueducts, many in use by the third century AD.

 

[bendog]

So don't bother?? LOL there are plenty of jobs involved,plenty. The shape our roads are in is criminal,the amount of taxes collected in ny we should have no bad roads,where has the money gone?

Ok, have it your way. For Obama's supporters a 14% increase in greenhouse gasses per gallon of oil is not worth ... what, take the big number 15K construction and 8000 service jobs and what .... 15k to expand a port. We're adding 100k jobs in a bad month.

It's about greenhouse gas proponents and doubters, and neither side can afford politically to tell the truth.

That 14% is not really an accurate measure, it's an average. The MIT article posted in a couple of places explains it.

Yeah I looked. and the jobs figures I posted were from Forbes, which similary tried averageing different estimates, and concluded there was no "real" number.

But I shouldn't have downplayed the jobs. It's just that the ND fields aren't the magic bullet for employment. And, I doubt the greenhouse gasses in themsleves will end the planet. Though I'm firmly convinced of global warming, and whatever effect greenhouse gasses have, it aint' a good effec.t

 

[boilermaker55]

Has anyone bothered to ask who pushed this legislation and who will make the most money on the Keystone?
Bet! koch brothers.
Refine you oil in the country it is pumped from and keep the garbage and toxins that come from it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil to Texas to be refined and sold on the world market, that will produce long term jobs in the U.S.? Seems more likely to produce profits for the power elite, put regular folks at risk and cheaper energy to Europe and Asia.

Here's an idea. Let's build pipelines from the Northern states to the Southwest and transport water to grow food in the arid desserts of the South. In doing so, and connecting pipelines to canals we can move goods cheaply among communities and the states, provide recreational activities along the way (kayak, canoe, fishing, lakes, camp grounds, etc.) and reduce the risk of floods and droughts.

What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.

Sure you can, it's simply a matter of building coalitions and seeking win-win solutions. Today we are engaged in never ending zero sum games. Let's think outside the box: Consider the massive amount of snow and ice currently being stored so it can be flushed down storm drains throughout the Midwest and north east. What if we had means to transport the snow, ice and spring flood waters to the Great Planes, West Texas, New Mexico, Eastern Colorado, Utah, and Arizona? Filling man made lakes and underground storage caverns for farming and recreation. Expensive, yep. Would building and maintaining such a project create jobs? Yep.

Did you know the Chicago River's flow was reversed. The Erie Canal was built finished in 1825; and the Roman Empire created aqueducts, many in use by the third century AD.

Do you honestly think the greenie weenies would be ok with it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Keystone Pipeline to Be Built -- Daily Intelligencer

...Because There’s No Reason Not To.

So, what public policy reason is there to block the pipeline? There really isn’t one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Has anyone bothered to ask who pushed this legislation and who will make the most money on the Keystone?
Bet! koch brothers.
Refine you oil in the country it is pumped from and keep the garbage and toxins that come from it.

Of course they stand to make a profit you idiot. You do not go into any business and not try to profit from it. They're the ones that's risking the money to build it, they paid for the holding of the tar sands area. So yes that should see a profit, if they don't then they aren't very good business men.

 

[tinydancer]

Has anyone bothered to ask who pushed this legislation and who will make the most money on the Keystone?
Bet! koch brothers.
Refine you oil in the country it is pumped from and keep the garbage and toxins that come from it.

What the hell are you babbling about? You already have Keystone I and II.

Sheesh. You don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Canada has been your number one supplier of oil for years now.

 

[Duped]

One job is alot if it's yours! We will be using oil far into the future. There is no good reason why we should not build it, and a plethora of reasons ( jobs ) why we should!

 

[The T]

Keystone Pipeline to Be Built -- Daily Intelligencer

...Because There’s No Reason Not To.

So, what public policy reason is there to block the pipeline? There really isn’t one.

Obama is staying true to his threat to make energy more expensive before he won the first time. THAT is what's going on.