• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

$25 Billion down the drain

Let's not forget that the Iraqi government essentially kicked us out of the country, Malaki alienated segments of the population, and anyone with a brain knew this was going to happen from the beginning. The Chinese got the oil contracts, we rebuilt the country for them, and it's still a bunch of people in a sandbox who can't get along.
 
bobknightfan said:
When discussing possible solutions for the energy problem in this country, conservatives always focus only on the supply side....because that's what the oil companies' money that is bankrolling their political careers is pushing them to do. This problem will never be solved by increasing production. I don't care if you drill 5 miles off the Carolinas, Florida, Gulf states, & California coast, along with Alaska and even in the Grand Canyon, if you think there may be oil there. No matter how much you increase the supply, it will still eventually be depleted. Reducing demand for oil thru alternative sources of energy will be required if this problem is ever going to be solved....and oil-backed Republicans have no interest in making any kind of serious commitment to that.

The Keystone Pipeline wouldn't make a dent in this country's energy situation....nor would it create any significant number of American jobs. It would, however, be a huge source of additional profits for oil companies by opening up a better way to get their oil from Canada to the Gulf...so that it could be shipped to other nations around the world. We should be more concerned about solving this nation's energy problem than funding ways for the giant oil companies to earn even more billions of dollars of profits than they are already earning today.
Click to expand...

You say "profits" like it is a dirty word.
Profits = taxes = schools
 
silk said:
You say "profits" like it is a dirty word.
Profits = taxes = schools
Click to expand...

I disagree with your equation. Profits do not equal taxes, and taxes do not equal schools.
 
silk said:
You say "profits" like it is a dirty word.
Profits = taxes = schools
Click to expand...

PROFITS FROM IRAQ= DEAD AMERICAN KIDS

PROFITS=AMERICANS SCARRED FOR LIFE

PROFITS= OVER 100,000 INNOCENT IRAQIS DEAD

PROFITS=HIGHER OIL PRICES

PROFITS=AMERICA CONSIDERED A PREDATOR NATION AND CREATING MORE TERRORISTS

Profits from Keystone go to Canada, China, Japan and India not the US. What we will get are oil spills that no one knows how to clean up.
 
RJKarl said:
I haven't a single good reason.

Here's a basic question, would you want an oil pipeline to go through your town when the company has not shown the ability to effectively clean up after even a small spill?

There are at least two or three spill events of oil sands oil that are still being cleaned up many months to years after they occurred. They have not shown the resources to clean up after themselves.

This oil is not for US consumption. Once it gets to Texas, it will be sent overseas.

We take all the risks for almost none of the rewards. This is one of the ultimate suckers' bets.
Click to expand...

RJ:

I think you said it all in your first sentence.

Links? Details? Specifics? Who, what, where, when? Other than NIMBY, I don't see anything in your post to respond to. By comparison, I don't recall a significant problem, from an environmental perspective, with the Great Alaskan Pipeline since 1978.

I care about the environment. I live on the Earth, too, and I have three children who will all hopefully outlive me.

I am comfortable that everyone, to include the United States, will make sure that it is in their financial best interests to operate the Keystone Pipeline. If it isn't, then we shut it down.
 
Here's a report about the ongoing jobs from the US State Department as reported by Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...f-jobs-fall-to-20-when-pipeline-opens-1-.html

"he number of people needed to operate and maintain the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) pipeline may be as few as 20, according to the U.S. State Department, or as many as a few hundred, according to TransCanada.

“I don’t see a big jobs impact,” Stephen Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, said in an interview. “It gets the oil into refineries that already exist. It’s like replacing a bridge on the highway.”

Even the pipeline owners put the number as under 1000:

"TransCanada Vice President Robert Jones said permanent jobs would be “in the hundreds, certainly not in the thousands,” in a Nov. 11 interview on CNN."

Here's a story about an oil sands spill in Michigan:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster

"TransCanada told Daniel in writing that questions about spills were hypothetical because their pipeline would be designed not to spill. But in a document for the State Department, TransCanada predicted two spills every 10 years over the entire length of its Keystone XL pipeline, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argue that the company underestimates that risk. Another pipeline it put into service two years ago has had 14 spills in the United States, although most were small, according to TransCanada."

Is it a "small spill" if virtually uncleanable, thick gunk invades your town or your property?

Here's another one:

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/26-4

Here's one that kept spilling for over nine months with no stoppage or way to clean up:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/09/3268751/alberta-tar-sands-leaking/

To summarize:

Virtually no continuing US jobs
Virtually none of the oil will be sold or used in US
Clean up of inevitable spills is nearly impossible
Strengthens our trading partners but not the US

It really makes no sense.
 
19deac92 said:
RJ:

I think you said it all in your first sentence.

Links? Details? Specifics? Who, what, where, when? Other than NIMBY, I don't see anything in your post to respond to. By comparison, I don't recall a significant problem, from an environmental perspective, with the Great Alaskan Pipeline since 1978.

I care about the environment. I live on the Earth, too, and I have three children who will all hopefully outlive me.

I am comfortable that everyone, to include the United States, will make sure that it is in their financial best interests to operate the Keystone Pipeline. If it isn't, then we shut it down.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
RJ:

Thanks for the links. I will read them when I get the chance. I've got to log out and get some work done.
 
I've got a call at 8 AM and one at 9AM.

If I'm posting for the next few hours, they are really boring.

RE: Keystone- Think about this. It's a Canadian company. They are selling the oil to Asia. Why wouldn't they take the shortcut to the Pacific rather than the Gulf of Mexico?
 
RJKarl said:
PROFITS FROM IRAQ= DEAD AMERICAN KIDS

PROFITS=AMERICANS SCARRED FOR LIFE

PROFITS= OVER 100,000 INNOCENT IRAQIS DEAD

PROFITS=HIGHER OIL PRICES

PROFITS=AMERICA CONSIDERED A PREDATOR NATION AND CREATING MORE TERRORISTS

Profits from Keystone go to Canada, China, Japan and India not the US. What we will get are oil spills that no one knows how to clean up.
Click to expand...
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

I lurked this and the old boards for a few years. Way back there was a poster called trademan (or something like that). I thought he and RJ were the same person. RJ would state something stupid and trademan would show how wrong RJ was. I thought it was effective in getting a point across.

I guess I was wrong. But its still fun reading Rj.
 
So in my perusal of the news today, I see two things:

1. Obama isn't committing troops to Iraq.
2. Iran has deployed their military to help oppose the insurgents.

I see two wins here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top