• 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!

What is wrong with the Keystone XL?

I admit that I'm really late to the party and don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Is it somewhere written in stone that we have to let the Canadians ship oil through our country by one means or another? Why don't they build a pipeline across their country, to a port, and ship the oil to the refineries by tanker like the rest of the fucking world?
 
I don't understand why the US has to be the ones to help Canadian companies make billions of dollars. It doesn't help the US in any way. Let the Canadians solve their own problems.
 
TownieDeac said:
Look, pourdeac works with scientists and they're all IDIOTS. Especially the ones who are experts, they're the most idiotic of all. Corporations on the other hand are fine.
Click to expand...
Never said that, I said they aren't as smart as you think, are biased (including political), and not on the pedestal you put them. But I take your attempt to undermine me as emanating from the threat of a real discussion...meaning you're afraid of reality.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
This little-known law is significant because Congress crafted it, in part, with the explicit intent to block the US from buying Canadian tar sands oil — considered the dirtiest oil on the planet."
Click to expand...
Dirtiest doesn't mean useless and as with a lot of these recent technology advancements, there is new technology to deal with this material.
 
But it's still dirtier and not used in the US. Even uber-oil promoter George W. Bush had a law passed outlawing its use.

The only reason Keystone is an issue is to enrich Republican donors and Canadians versus the inevitable risks all pipelines have. The reality is no one has successfully cleaned up an oil sands spill.

This has no value to America or Americans, but we take all the risk. Why don't the proponents address this?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
right, I mis-simplified "not building" to "not drilling". my fault, i still don't understand how this works: "'not building the pipeline" = more carbon
Click to expand...

i think the point skins is trying to make is that the carbon impact is greater if shipped by the current methods (rail or freight) than if shipped via the pipeline. that is assuming that the drilling is happening regardless.

note that i don't know if this is true or not, just trying to explain skins's point. i think.
 
Will you answer the question? (Johnny Mac inflection).
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
But it's still dirtier and not used in the US. Even uber-oil promoter George W. Bush had a law passed outlawing its use.

The only reason Keystone is an issue is to enrich Republican donors and Canadians versus the inevitable risks all pipelines have. The reality is no one has successfully cleaned up an oil sands spill.

This has no value to America or Americans, but we take all the risk. Why don't the proponents address this?
Click to expand...

At the time Dems controlled both houses. I seriously doubt that that part was a Republican objective.
 
Why not? The Keystone people have been putting big bucks in the coffers of Republicans then and now.
 
RJKarl said:
But it's still dirtier and not used in the US. Even uber-oil promoter George W. Bush had a law passed outlawing its use.
Click to expand...
Sure, when the technology to clean it up was not around. You keep missing that point. It's coming to the US regardless...by boat or by pipeline.
 
pourdeac said:
Sure, when the technology to clean it up was not around. You keep missing that point. It's coming to the US regardless...by boat or by pipeline.
Click to expand...

If we turn it down, it will be piped to British Columbia and then shipped to Asia. We are not going to buy that oil.
 
pourdeac said:
Sure, when the technology to clean it up was not around. You keep missing that point. It's coming to the US regardless...by boat or by pipeline.
Click to expand...

Absolutely OK with me, as long as it's by boat. I stand with my Sioux brothers.
 
RJKarl said:
Why not? The Keystone people have been putting big bucks in the coffers of Republicans then and now.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you are getting at here. Why would the Pubs propose something that sounds just like a Dem party objective into a bill passed by a Dem house and senate?
 
Because the product was so dirty even some Republicans (including W) wanted no part of that oil.
 
The law says it. The vote says it. That W signed and supported the bill says it.

how is that far fetched?
 
pourdeac said:
We are not going to turn down heavy crude from Canada, whether it gets here by ship or by pipeline.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-keystone-xl-exporting-oil-experts-disag/
Click to expand...

No amount of facts, studies, statistics, or evidence will change certain minds...especially someone so politically moderate.

Obama said, Keystone XL allows "Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else."

The general consensus among experts, as well as the State Department, is that American refineries would be the primary buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, by a vast margin. Some Keystone XL critics have a point that American refineries would likely export some of the products that they make with crude oil transported by the pipeline. The State Department says, however, that product exports are already increasing, and that trend would likely continue independent of a new pipeline. Additionally, American refineries tend to keep more products in the country than they export.

We rate Obama’s claim Mostly False.
Click to expand...
 
"On Nov. 17, TransCanada told Reuters, it "makes no business sense for our customers to transport oil down to the U.S. Gulf Coast, pay to export it overseas but then pay to transport millions of barrels of higher-priced oil back to the U.S. refineries to create the products we rely on.""

It actually makes sense due to the quality of the unrefined product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top