GOP Forcing Pipeline Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sedulous, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. Sedulous macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #1
    Well, it looks like the GOP is at it again. Even at extreme ecological peril, they want to build a pipeline that essentially crosses the entirety of the US and threatens to pollute aquifers for several states. So, instead of a simple up or down vote, they have attached it to an essential bill hoping to force approval.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.

    I just don't get it. We don't need more oil. We're actually exporting now. Why take such a huge risk? If anything they should be doing everything possible to move away from dependence on fossil fuels. Save the $7,000,000,000 for research into better sources of energy.
     
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    The US consumes twice as much oil as it produces. You still need imports and will do for quite a while.
     
  3. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #3
    Not totally true. Even FOX admits as such.
     
  4. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    The pipeline was rerouted around the aquifers. Theres no reason to not approve it. Secure oil and jobs all in one.
     
  5. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #5
    I didn't realize gasoline was the only use for oil.
     
  6. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #6
    Fuel, yes.. because you have all the refineries. The raw material, oil, still needs to be imported. The pipeline is about oil, not fuel.
     
  7. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #7
    Maybe so, but it still seems short-sighted. Burning goop (that we do indeed need for other purposes) is not a winning long term plan. Emphasis should be placed on developing other sources for energy and fuel.
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    And then we buy it back, in some measure, are refined product.

    Better we should build a couple of more refineries in Alberta.
     
  9. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #9
    Ok, so we still import 49% of our oil. But building this pipeline would not change the fact that we would still have to import ever increasing amounts of oil. Certainly how much oil is imported would decrease if we stopped burning goop as a way to power everything.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    Holy hyperbole, Batman!:eek:

    Guess we better shut down all the existing oil and natural gas pipelines, too.:rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #11
    The volume of oil proposed by the XL line, the fact that it only would carry crude, and that the GOP refuses to wait to see if the planned path would be suitable should be something you think about.

    Thanks for the maps (everyone please note it covers not just crude oil, but also gas and other petroleum products). I don't intrinsically have a problem with pipelines. It is the fact that they want to continue to build towards an oil soaked future. This stuff has no happy ending.
     
  12. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #12
    I would be all for that, if it could be done in a relatively clean fashion. Better still to cut down on our consumption.

    Clearly. But that is another issue entirely. Any transition will not happen overnight and government needs to plan for the near term as well as the long term.

    Ther real issue with XL is that the refineries are on one end of the country and the oil is on the other. At least there will be fewer supertankers plying the waters of the world.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    Keystone XL was put on the back burnerto win Obama votes, its.going through one way or another. They aren't studying environmental issues they are buying time.and.votes
     
  14. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #14
    yeah, why not build the refinery in Alberta? It certainly would be more efficient to distribute the refined products instead of bulk material. Likewise, it is poor strategy to group a bulk of the refineries in one place (Texas).

    Transition may not happen overnight, but this sort of thinking won't speed up transition either. Why should anyone invest in alternatives as long as policies strain to keep a petroleum fueled world "cheaper" than working on an alternative? It is sort of like why no new antibiotics are being actively developed by big pharma... the antibiotics we have are so cheap that it is not economically viable to develop new antibiotics.

    ----------

    That isn't what I read. Again, it isn't that pipelines are "evil", I just don't think spending $7B on a pipeline is a good investment in the future. The justifications for my opinion are complex but basically boil down to "oil based power is not our future". You certainly do not need to agree with me.
     
  15. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #15
    The problem, of course, is that even if we figured out the miracle fuel of the 21st Century by tomorrow, it would take years and billions of dollars to convert all of the infrastructure that's in place. We would need a continuing supply of petroleum throughout this process.

    In reality, there is no perfect solution to future energy needs, making petroleum even more important than we would like to admit. If the pipeline isn't built, people aren't going to stop driving their cars or buying plastic. The only thing that will happen is that we will have to buy more non-Canadian petroleum that must be shipped further (and incidentally would also be much more likely to enrich the coffers of a corrupt dictatorship).

    It is shortsighted to not be focused on developing renewable energy sources that can be delivered cheaply, but it is also naive to think that stopping this pipeline is going to somehow have any meaningful impact on that.

    We live in an oil-soaked present, and we aren't going to be able to change that overnight.
     
  16. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #16
    This has not happened by chance.

    The U.S. oil conglomerates, and the government, want to keep the jobs, and the protection of a precious 'resource', in their own back-yard.

    If we, at some stage, disagreed with the U.S., and cut off supply of refined product to them, all Hell would break loose.

    Better that they control us, as has always been the case. Note in part the sweetheart deal we gave them on our raw crude. We have sold-out our independent future.
     
  17. Sedulous, Jan 29, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012

    Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #17
    I totally get what you (and others) are saying. Please don't mistake my apprehension as refusing to believe that oil has importance now and likely in the future. However, I disagree on the strategy moving forward. It seems to me all this comes down to is exactly how to move into the future. And my point is that A: The GOP is nuts to force approval on something that has not been validated and B: Measures like this pipeline will keep oil as the only economically viable alternative.

    Yes, "future" energy may take a long time to develop... but maybe not as long if energy companies have an economic incentive to push on developing/researching better ways to power the world. I know of only one major government funded project that appears to have much hope for a sustainable alternative that truly tackles the issue (NIF). Such research has allowed development of LIFE reactors that are expected to be online in 2030. Along the way, research at the NIF has single handedly had profound impact on other things, most obviously much cheaper and efficient lasers. But these sorts of fringe benefits that come with the wholesale gains made by research would never happen if we continue to blindly screech for more status quo.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    Cold fusion to the rescue? (Sung to the tune of Jim Daddy To The Rescue.)

    Hard to retrofit that into a war-plane. ;)
     
  19. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #19
    When it comes to US defense, no cost is too high!

    LIFE does not use cold fusion... in fact, it uses very hot fusion. Of course it works otherwise there would be no stars... the principle at work is the same... inertial confinement of hydrogen. But I only used NIF as an example of what CAN be done. Why believe that there is no clever alternative to burning dino-juice? Seems to me I am taking a lashing on this board for suggesting policies that encourage investment in "future energy" rather than doing everything possible to maintain the status quo. Hell, we'd all still be using PowerPC architecture and swapping floppies right now if it weren't for people with the vision to move into the future.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Has Canada or Mexico or even the USA ever had an independent future? I honestly don't think so. We're inextricably shackled as well as united by geography. Nothing can change that.
     
  21. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #21
    And this situation will continue unless policies change. Keeping oil as cheap and so plentiful for as long as possible so that we can just burn it up will not encourage investment in alternatives.
     
  22. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #22
    It amazes me that so many people think that gas taxes should be reduced. If anything they need to be increased or else tied to usage. Mexico also subsidizes the price of gasoline and given the decreasing amount of oil that they're pumping, the country is going to be in a world of hurt if they don't address this.
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    Certainly not Canadian sovereignty. :rolleyes:

    NO, you can't have our fresh water. Drink the crude if you get thirty. :p

    That would be when the Washington lobbyists decree when it should happen.

    In the meantime, they will milk it for all it is worth.
     
  24. Sedulous thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #24
    Well, if you look at my posts, nearly every one has a negative rating. Seems most think keeping oil as cheap and plentiful as possible is the best thing since sliced bread. Nobody wonders why fuel is cheaper than water? To those who keep voting my posts down I guess this doesn't register as a problem for economic incentive to work on alternatives? I guess it is better to ride the oiled slide all the way to the bottom... Mad Max style.

    Gimme all your water... ehh nevermind, it is all contaminated with tar-sand spill-off now. Still, just give us the fuel.
     

    Attached Files:

  25. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    So what alternatives are there that can power the world with the same efficiency? Right now oil is the only thing that does it the best. People will be driving no matter what the cost of oil is, the problem is people will stop buying other things because they NEEd oil. If you think $6.00 a gallon for gas is a good thing think again.
     

Share This Page