Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 29 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 422
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,220

    Biden Executive Order Keystone Pipeline XL

    Biden uses executive order to remove permit allowing Keystone XL. Killing the project.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...limate-crisis/

    https://www.npr.org/sections/inaugur...ne-xl-pipeline

    Good job. A real clear message. GOP crying about 1000 jobs which is ridiculous.

    Biden showing he's not all ******** with his plan to move away from oil.

    Not only that the type of oil they are mining for emit even more carbon dioxide than typical crude oil. Estimate of 5-20% more carbon admitted in the atmosphere.

    The whole "it loses jobs ********" is a façade. Sure 1000 people got laid off, and that isn't a small matter for these people. But these are construction jobs. Oil lobbyists have tried to claim that the pipeline will create 100's of thousands of jobs. According to the state department it's closer to around 2,000 jobs over the course of it being built. And 35 jobs continuing after completion. These are not long time careers. This is a construction contract.

    I'm extremely happy about this. IT's aggressive. It's not wish washy. And it gives a lot of energy lobbyists the finger day one. This was never going to create a ton of jobs. It was never going to lower the cost of gas. It was being built to send even dirtier than normal oil overseas to make oil companies more profits.
    Last edited by MRSpock; 01-22-2021 at 06:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,902
    well, there's a lot more to it.......firstly, there's more than 1,000 jobs involved...and the effect has a lot of indirect complications as well..........including wth do you do with the work already done, the costs already sunk

    obviously, there was also the problem of WHERE some of the pipeline was going, including across native land

    To me, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to SUSPEND the project, not outright kill it. I don't know that on Day 1 of his presidency he has all the info needed to just flat shut it down without discussion on alternatives, redirections, etc.

    that said, if it pisses our governor off...at this point that might mean it's a good idea....Barbie Trump is getting worse by the day
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,220
    Lol. Whose your governor?

    But I'm only talking about jobs directly effected. If people want to go down the rabbit hole of other indirect effects. Then we'll talk about the cost/loss of jobs that'll happen as California keeps catching on fire and hurricanes start happening more frequently and become more intense.

    But you are right that there's more to it than this.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,902
    Some indirect effects are more direct than others. There are employees whose companies had federal contracts to supply various things to the project, for example. I'm not spinning further away than that, and some would call that a direct impact.

    Barbie Trump aka Kristi "Don't disrespect people who choose not to wear a mask", "I know the people voted to legalize pot but I don't like it so I'll use taxpayer money to fight it", "Yes, Mr Trump, I DO think you should be added to Mt Rushmore" Noem
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    14,429
    It does suck for all those that lose jobs. But I think the environment is more important than money and jobs.

    Many Canadians pissed about this

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    13,312
    Standing Rock, Standing Rock. Standing Rock

    Three cheers to the protesters at Standing Rock, the Native American community, and Water protectors. Now let's roll back Trump's attempts to open up their lands and nature preserves, especially in Alaska, to the energy industry.
    Last edited by WES445; 01-22-2021 at 09:56 AM.
    A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

    Martin Luther King.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,670
    Itd be a much more effective pipeline if we used it to take water the other direction

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35,971
    So, the Obama administration found 5 times that the pipeline not going through was not going to keep the oil in the ground. It was going to come up regardless (it's not the US doing it so it's not under our control). The purpose of the pipeline was to get rid of the diesel trains and HORRIBLY polluting tankers moving the oil instead.

    So, while killing the pipeline sounds like it's a positive step on getting off of oil, all it really does is increase the cost in money and the environment because we are still going to buy and process and use the oil anyhow.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    96,550
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Standing Rock, Standing Rock. Standing Rock

    Three cheers to the protesters at Standing Rock, the Native American community, and Water protectors. Now let's roll back Trump's attempts to open up their lands and nature preserves, especially in Alaska, to the energy industry.
    Yea we need to clear out ALL the oil drilling attempts in ANWR.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    17,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    So, the Obama administration found 5 times that the pipeline not going through was not going to keep the oil in the ground. It was going to come up regardless (it's not the US doing it so it's not under our control). The purpose of the pipeline was to get rid of the diesel trains and HORRIBLY polluting tankers moving the oil instead.

    So, while killing the pipeline sounds like it's a positive step on getting off of oil, all it really does is increase the cost in money and the environment because we are still going to buy and process and use the oil anyhow.
    Do you have those findings regarding Obama administration? "The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests."

    One of the central arguments by pipeline pushers is that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL. This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. It’s costly both to produce and to ship, particularly by rail, which would be an alternative to Keystone XL. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs twice as much as by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project (which could last for 50 years), access to cheap pipeline capacity will play a major role in the decision to move forward or not. Without Keystone XL, the tar sands industry has canceled projects rather than shift to rail, subsequently leaving more of the earth’s dirtiest fuel in the ground where it belongs.

    Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the US energy information agency (EIA) began publishing official data on crude by rail movements:
    1) The long threatened deluge of Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast by rail never happened
    2) Canadian crude comprises a tiny fraction of the crude moving by rail in the United States
    3) Canadian crude shipped by rail has declined markedly, despite the delay and rejection of Keystone XL.

    But the strongest argument that Keystone XL's rejection is going to result in less tar sands, rather than more tar sands by rail, comes from Shell. In late October, when Shell announced it was walking away from its 80,000 barrel per day (bpd) Carmen Creek tar sands project - a project that Shell had spent $2 billion to build over two years - the company attributed its decision to "a lack of infrastructure." In other words, Shell would rather walk away from $2 billion than move forward with its tar sands project using rail as a principal means of transportation. It's understating the case to say that rail isn't an attractive alternative for tar sands producers. In fact, you couldn't pay some tar sands companies $2 billion to even try it.

    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    17,573
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    well, there's a lot more to it.......firstly, there's more than 1,000 jobs involved...and the effect has a lot of indirect complications as well..........including wth do you do with the work already done, the costs already sunk

    obviously, there was also the problem of WHERE some of the pipeline was going, including across native land

    To me, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to SUSPEND the project, not outright kill it. I don't know that on Day 1 of his presidency he has all the info needed to just flat shut it down without discussion on alternatives, redirections, etc.

    that said, if it pisses our governor off...at this point that might mean it's a good idea....Barbie Trump is getting worse by the day
    How often do you think oil companies care when a pipeline leaks? How many more jobs? Outside of the jobs, how much should I actually care about any of that?? Big ol' goose egg

    Just because Trump ignored the evidence (a trend??) does not mean it's not clearly available for the Biden administration to review.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Westbrook36 View Post
    Do you have those findings regarding Obama administration? "The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests."

    One of the central arguments by pipeline pushers is that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL. This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. It’s costly both to produce and to ship, particularly by rail, which would be an alternative to Keystone XL. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs twice as much as by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project (which could last for 50 years), access to cheap pipeline capacity will play a major role in the decision to move forward or not. Without Keystone XL, the tar sands industry has canceled projects rather than shift to rail, subsequently leaving more of the earth’s dirtiest fuel in the ground where it belongs.

    Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the US energy information agency (EIA) began publishing official data on crude by rail movements:
    1) The long threatened deluge of Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast by rail never happened
    2) Canadian crude comprises a tiny fraction of the crude moving by rail in the United States
    3) Canadian crude shipped by rail has declined markedly, despite the delay and rejection of Keystone XL.

    But the strongest argument that Keystone XL's rejection is going to result in less tar sands, rather than more tar sands by rail, comes from Shell. In late October, when Shell announced it was walking away from its 80,000 barrel per day (bpd) Carmen Creek tar sands project - a project that Shell had spent $2 billion to build over two years - the company attributed its decision to "a lack of infrastructure." In other words, Shell would rather walk away from $2 billion than move forward with its tar sands project using rail as a principal means of transportation. It's understating the case to say that rail isn't an attractive alternative for tar sands producers. In fact, you couldn't pay some tar sands companies $2 billion to even try it.

    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline
    The Obama era reviews were just that the pipeline not happening was not going to help the environment, not that it was good for the US overall.

    And yes with the pipeline companies will make more money getting at that oil, but most don't question that the oil WILL get pulled out regardless of the pipeline going through. Not where it will go when it comes out but that someone will pay to get at it eventually. The pipeline will speed it up but the pollution is still going to happen either way. If the US goes to 100% electric vehicles and 100% clean energy we still need oil.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    24,674
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_noodles View Post
    It does suck for all those that lose jobs. But I think the environment is more important than money and jobs.

    Many Canadians pissed about this
    Trudeau be all like,

    “I broke my promise for nothing?!”

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    13,312
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Trudeau be all like,

    “I broke my promise for nothing?!”
    Trudeau is royally pissed about this. I assume he had a lot riding on this. I do know the Canadian indigenous communities are happy about it.
    A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

    Martin Luther King.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35,971
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Trudeau is royally pissed about this. I assume he had a lot riding on this. I do know the Canadian indigenous communities are happy about it.
    How do you know? I'm not saying they are not happy about it, I just wonder how you know they are? Or is it someone else speaking for them being happy about it?

Page 1 of 29 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •