Skip to main content

View Diary: Keystone XL: Will the State Department's shameful dishonesty become Obama's climate legacy? (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  People on this site apparently (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alphorn, 6412093

    are not able to search the internet and see that the oil is moving out, with or without this pipeline.

    Indeed, rail could ramp up to 2 million bbl/day capacity out of the tarsands area with what is essentially existing infrastructure - and is WAY worse environmentally than a pipeline (it's already up to 20% of that moving Bakken oil - heck, a lack of pipeline capacity hasn't stopped that boondoggle AT ALL - but yet we pretend it will in this case).

    Strange, strange stuff.  

     

    •  So you think we should just let them build the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      pipeline?

      Besides, it has less to do with the pipeline and more to do with public awareness of the tar sands development in the first place.

      Uncontested business as usual will damn us all, so contesting any action on the part of the desperate oil industry is a necessity.

      Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.
      (Facts brought to you by the Party of the Future - the GOP)

      by Pescadero Bill on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:27:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RG, you continually overtate rail v pipe (5+ / 0-)

      Take it from the Canadian Energy Minister's speech this week.

      Oliver also said Keystone and other planned pipelines are "critically important" to the Canadian economy because current bottlenecks in North American oil pipeline deliveries caused by a lack of pipeline capacity has landlocked Canadian oil. This means Canada earns a lower price for its oil - about $21 a barrel or $20 billion a year at current prices - than it would otherwise get on international markets.

      "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

      by oregonj on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course Big Oil wants every cent of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093, alphorn

        profit it can get and doesn't want Big Rail to get a share of the pie.

        But that has absolutely nothing to do with slowing the development of the Tar sands - the only thing that would do that would be if crude oil prices dropped below the cost of development ($20/bbl) plus extraction ($15/bbl) plus shipping (which by rail is about $30 bbl anywhere in NA) - or about $65/bbl.

        There is essentially no chance that will happen - global markets are shaped by forces quite outside of this rather minor tempest in a teapot.

    •  Thanks for an answer that makes sense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, 6412093

      based on my search of facts.  

      Talking about the President's climate legacy being this pipeline is more than little bit of hyperbole.

      If I remember correctly Canada is at this time under a right leaning government and I can see we the people of the US blocking a pipeline to allow another country to extract heavy sour crude oil.  But if Canada wants to extract that oil there is zero chance of the general population in the US stopping them from doing that within their borders.

      Environmental groups are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT protesting only on the potential damage of pipeline here and not climate change.  Really dumb politics!!

      The only pressure on the President should be to stop the pipeline because of spills NOT climate change.  Either choice puts him in a shitty position to convince Canada to take things slow.

      •  The tar sands project is multinational, 60% (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, joanneleon

        of the investment comes from the USA. Every big oil company in the US is up there destroying the environment on a massive scale as well as companies from China, Indonesia, etc.

      •  Canada is currently under a right wing (0+ / 0-)

        government, but even their "progressive" alternative (the NDP) are on record as not being against the Tar Sands, but to development them responsibly.  It's anybody's guess what that really means, but it is quite clear that one way or another, development will continue.

      •  Another thing that is worrisome (0+ / 0-)

        about blocking Keystone - even if it magically went well beyond what those who propose this strategy hope and COMPLETELY shut down the tar sands - that will only prevent a 0.02-0.05 C increase in global temperature - or about 1% of projected increases from carbon emissions.

        Is blocking 1% a good thing - sure, absolutely!

        But with all the over-blown hyperbole in this issue - will it really be possible to whip people into a frenzy 99 more times to solve the problem?   The boy who cried wolf story, people's response to torture and our idiotic wars of choice (really, who beyond a few cranks like myself who post at places like DK really care about those things anymore?), etc - suggest not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site