Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

knothead wrote:I weighed in on this issue months ago when it began to become a political topic.  I was opposed to it then and I think the President did the right thing by denying it.  I concede the horrible safety record in rail transport but the remaining elements more than offset those counter arguments.  This is a very unique request in that the Canadian government advocated for this PROJECT which traditionally would be the role of TransCanada; governments traditionally advocate for policy in lieu of projects (this is my first red flag).  The facts remain that it is NOT a job creator rather it is a job destroyer when you consider the loss of the truck drivers and the railroad workers who make a good living.  As we all recall one of the talking points by the advocates was the creation of jobs but after closer scrutiny we see that this was an illusion (my 2nd red flag).  The jobs created by approving the project are all temporary lasting approximately two years.  Add to this the highly toxic material goes to Port Arthur where it will be refined and sold on the world market with no obligation whatsoever of retaining in the USA (third red flag).  Port Arthur, as the designated destination, would be a tax free zone for TransCanada therefore no proceeds of this endeavor would be realized for Texas or the US government for the privilege of pumping toxic material across our nation with its attendant risks with no benefit whatsoever.  President Obama, whether for political reasoning or not, did the right thing and I applaud his decision.  Remember . . . . the material will continue to be transported and whatever America stands to gain will continue and those thousands of truck drivers and rail workers will continue to earn a good living . . . . good decision!!!      

2seaoat wrote:Everyone is missing the real issue here.

We need to invest heavily in interstate horse and buggy infrastructure. Just imagine all of the jobs!


Not the best analogy.  The first leg of the keystone goes to Illinois refineries.  I saw it being installed.  I know who worked at the old ENRON plant which has changed owners which were cracking plastics off the natural gas and oil lines.  The price of Midwest oil refined at these factories allowed Midwest gas to be two cents a gallon less over the last five years.  Illinois and Indiana have some of the largest refining capacity in the nation and the canadian oil has helped the same.   I am all for renewable energy and Illinois and Indiana cornfields are filled and growing with wind power, nuclear and great solar credits, but it is simply naive to think that the horse and buggy business overnight was gone.  I was growing up in the fifties with a harness shop which every Saturday was filled with farmers who still used horses on some of their fields and tractors......the transition will never eliminate hydrocarbons from our industries, but we can certainly lower carbon pollution.   This is a bad decision.  If the locals do not want it, that is fine with me.  However, when rail transport increases, safety drops and my horror story of the ethanol spill and its impact on the environment makes it certain in my mind that this is not a zero sum game as some environmentalist have made it.   Pipelines are safer.  Period.  I never want to see something like I saw six years ago in the largest fish kill in Illinois history because of a poorly maintained rail line.  

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Everyone is missing the real issue here.

We need to invest heavily in interstate horse and buggy infrastructure. Just imagine all of the jobs!


Not the best analogy.  The first leg of the keystone goes to Illinois refineries.  I saw it being installed.  I know who worked at the old ENRON plant which has changed owners which were cracking plastics off the natural gas and oil lines.  The price of Midwest oil refined at these factories allowed Midwest gas to be two cents a gallon less over the last five years.  Illinois and Indiana have some of the largest refining capacity in the nation and the canadian oil has helped the same.   I am all for renewable energy and Illinois and Indiana cornfields are filled and growing with wind power, nuclear and great solar credits, but it is simply naive to think that the horse and buggy business overnight was gone.  I was growing up in the fifties with a harness shop which every Saturday was filled with farmers who still used horses on some of their fields and tractors......the transition will never eliminate hydrocarbons from our industries, but we can certainly lower carbon pollution.   This is a bad decision.  If the locals do not want it, that is fine with me.  However, when rail transport increases, safety drops and my horror story of the ethanol spill and its impact on the environment makes it certain in my mind that this is not a zero sum game as some environmentalist have made it.   Pipelines are safer.  Period.  I never want to see something like I saw six years ago in the largest fish kill in Illinois history because of a poorly maintained rail line.  

You make a good case for why we should be more aggressive in transitioning to renewable sources of energy and away from oil.

When we continually ask questions like "Where are the electric lawn mowers?  Huh?" while at the same time we're fighting to build more oil pipelines, the narrative of "It is naive to think we can meet our needs today via renewal energy sources" becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Everyone is missing the real issue here.

We need to invest heavily in interstate horse and buggy infrastructure. Just imagine all of the jobs!


Not the best analogy.  The first leg of the keystone goes to Illinois refineries.  I saw it being installed.  I know who worked at the old ENRON plant which has changed owners which were cracking plastics off the natural gas and oil lines.  The price of Midwest oil refined at these factories allowed Midwest gas to be two cents a gallon less over the last five years.  Illinois and Indiana have some of the largest refining capacity in the nation and the canadian oil has helped the same.   I am all for renewable energy and Illinois and Indiana cornfields are filled and growing with wind power, nuclear and great solar credits, but it is simply naive to think that the horse and buggy business overnight was gone.  I was growing up in the fifties with a harness shop which every Saturday was filled with farmers who still used horses on some of their fields and tractors......the transition will never eliminate hydrocarbons from our industries, but we can certainly lower carbon pollution.   This is a bad decision.  If the locals do not want it, that is fine with me.  However, when rail transport increases, safety drops and my horror story of the ethanol spill and its impact on the environment makes it certain in my mind that this is not a zero sum game as some environmentalist have made it.   Pipelines are safer.  Period.  I never want to see something like I saw six years ago in the largest fish kill in Illinois history because of a poorly maintained rail line.  

You make a good case for why we should be more aggressive in transitioning to renewable sources of energy and away from oil.

When we continually ask questions like "Where are the electric lawn mowers?  Huh?" while at the same time we're fighting to build more oil pipelines, the narrative of "It is naive to think we can meet our needs today via renewal energy sources" becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't seem to understand fossil and renewable energy industries are not the same and can co-exist (and have to) until renewable technology becomes more cost-effective inevitably replacing fossil. To simplify even more, unlike you most people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why would you argue against a privately funded pipeline? It's construction would have NO impact on renewable energy research or development since the pipeline investors are not involved in that industry.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Everyone is missing the real issue here.

We need to invest heavily in interstate horse and buggy infrastructure. Just imagine all of the jobs!


 I never want to see something like I saw six years ago in the largest fish kill in Illinois history because of a poorly maintained rail line.  

You make a good case for why we should be more aggressive in transitioning to renewable sources of energy and away from oil.

When we continually ask questions like "Where are the electric lawn mowers?  Huh?" while at the same time we're fighting to build more oil pipelines, the narrative of "It is naive to think we can meet our needs today via renewal energy sources" becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't seem to understand fossil and renewable energy industries are not the same and can co-exist (and have to) until renewable technology becomes more cost-effective inevitably replacing fossil. To simplify even more, unlike you most people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why would you argue against a privately funded pipeline? It's construction would have NO impact on renewable energy research or development since the pipeline investors are not involved in that industry.

Here again, it is the investments into these industries that ultimately make them cost-effective.  This is why I brought up the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy that you quoted but didn't appear to read.  If our goal is to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy - which, it should be - we need to invest much less in fossil fuels and much more in renewable energy.

PkrBum wrote:He wants buffett paid back for generous "donations". No wait... that's obama and the leftist dear leaders.

Bofer just supports the leftist rhetoric... no matter what it is or whether it makes sense or not. Yea team..!!

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:He wants buffett paid back for generous "donations". No wait... that's obama and the leftist dear leaders.

Bofer just supports the leftist rhetoric... no matter what it is or whether it makes sense or not. Yea team..!!

Yes we get it. You have nothing substantive to add but you still want to feel like you're participating. Thanks, PkrBum. You have technically participated.

Now, unless you have anything substantive to add...

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Everyone is missing the real issue here.

We need to invest heavily in interstate horse and buggy infrastructure. Just imagine all of the jobs!


 I never want to see something like I saw six years ago in the largest fish kill in Illinois history because of a poorly maintained rail line.  

You make a good case for why we should be more aggressive in transitioning to renewable sources of energy and away from oil.

When we continually ask questions like "Where are the electric lawn mowers?  Huh?" while at the same time we're fighting to build more oil pipelines, the narrative of "It is naive to think we can meet our needs today via renewal energy sources" becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't seem to understand fossil and renewable energy industries are not the same and can co-exist (and have to) until renewable technology becomes more cost-effective inevitably replacing fossil. To simplify even more, unlike you most people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why would you argue against a privately funded pipeline? It's construction would have NO impact on renewable energy research or development since the pipeline investors are not involved in that industry.

Here again, it is the investments into these industries that ultimately make them cost-effective.  This is why I brought up the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy that you quoted but didn't appear to read.  If our goal is to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy - which, it should be - we need to invest much less in fossil fuels and much more in renewable energy.

Your logic fails the common sense test. If I own an enormous oil field and need to get the product to market in a cost-effective manner I'm not going to invest in a wind farm as you suggest. I'll want to invest in a pipeline.

If I own a solar panel factory I'll want to invest in technology research to enable better solar conversion to electrical power in those panels. I'm not going to invest in an oil rig.

See the difference?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:He wants buffett paid back for generous "donations". No wait... that's obama and the leftist dear leaders.

Bofer just supports the leftist rhetoric... no matter what it is or whether it makes sense or not. Yea team..!!

Yes we get it.  You have nothing substantive to add but you still want to feel like you're participating.  Thanks, PkrBum.   You have technically participated.

Now, unless you have anything substantive to add...

" - we need to invest much less in fossil fuels and much more in renewable energy."

Who's we? This doesn't involve public tax dollars... in other words you just wish for the govt to control private enterprise.

PkrBum wrote:I refuse to play loop de loop with an asshole that ignores relevant facts while asking obtuse and misleading questions.
Let the govt give an economics degree to anyone that can balance their checkbook. In the mean time... fuck off.

gatorfan wrote:You don't seem to understand fossil and renewable energy industries are not the same and can co-exist (and have to) until renewable technology becomes more cost-effective inevitably replacing fossil.

PkrBum wrote:Third Freight Train Derails (Second Owned By Buffett) Days After Obama Kills Keystone Pipeline

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-09/third-freight-train-derails-second-owned-buffett-days-after-obama-kills-keystone-pip

Salinsky wrote:Pipelines spill three times as much oil as rail transport.

knothead wrote:I weighed in on this issue months ago when it began to become a political topic.  I was opposed to it then and I think the President did the right thing by denying it.  I concede the horrible safety record in rail transport but the remaining elements more than offset those counter arguments.  This is a very unique request in that the Canadian government advocated for this PROJECT which traditionally would be the role of TransCanada; governments traditionally advocate for policy in lieu of projects (this is my first red flag).  The facts remain that it is NOT a job creator rather it is a job destroyer when you consider the loss of the truck drivers and the railroad workers who make a good living.  As we all recall one of the talking points by the advocates was the creation of jobs but after closer scrutiny we see that this was an illusion (my 2nd red flag).  The jobs created by approving the project are all temporary lasting approximately two years.  Add to this the highly toxic material goes to Port Arthur where it will be refined and sold on the world market with no obligation whatsoever of retaining in the USA (third red flag).  Port Arthur, as the designated destination, would be a tax free zone for TransCanada therefore no proceeds of this endeavor would be realized for Texas or the US government for the privilege of pumping toxic material across our nation with its attendant risks with no benefit whatsoever.  President Obama, whether for political reasoning or not, did the right thing and I applaud his decision.  Remember . . . . the material will continue to be transported and whatever America stands to gain will continue and those thousands of truck drivers and rail workers will continue to earn a good living . . . . good decision!!!      

PkrBum wrote:Rail also costs 30 dollars per barrel more than pipeline... buffett is laughing all the way to the bank on our backs.

Salinsky wrote:That figure takes into consideration both volume and distance transported.

And, pipeline spills are indisputably exponentially more environmentally destructive than rail accidents.

There are valid arguments to made for pipelines, but safety versus rail isn't one of them.