Keystone XL political decision by Obama

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
    Obama deciding to postpone the Keystone XL pipeline decision until after the presidential elections pretty much sums up his presidency. The pipeline would have brought thousands of jobs and billions in revenues, not to mention cheaper and more secure energy to the US, but Obama decides to play politics instead of making major leadership decisions. All of the fringe environmentalists who think we are going to turn the tap off on oil and be green are happy with this decision, but they are also delusional.

    Demand for oil is not going down anytime soon, I would much rather the US import more oil from their major trading partners and allies than some middle eastern country who is likely funneling money to terrorist groups.

    Luckily Canada realizes this is just more political ******** and the pipeline will most likely go through sometime after the elections and Obama gets his votes.
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    You aren't really surprised that this has been delayed until after the election are you? It is business as usual in Washington.
     
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Is there any reason we need a pipeline? Why not just dig it up there, refine it there, and then put in on trucks to the various gas stations and other end users? Why do we need to create a target for terrorists or natural disaster?

    Frankly, why do we even need oil? Shouldn't we have been transitioning to alternative energy sources by now? Nixon campaigned on that. Reagan did as well. So did both Bushes. We have made some progress, but can anyone explain why we haven't had more?
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    Oil is used for more than energy.
     
  5. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    I'm curious, enough that it would warrant a pipeline? My guess is that gasoline is the primary reason for building the pipeline. What else is it used for, besides lubrication and gas?

    I'm finding it amusing that "drill baby drill" has been equated to macho conservative politics while alternative energy, non-fossil fuel energy sources are viewed as, for lack of a better term, wimpy and liberal. :)
     
  6. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #6
    Lots of things. Plastics, for example.
     
  7. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #7
    Wouldn't this project qualify as "shovel-ready"? I guess it was the wrong kind of shovel-ready job Obama was talking about.

    At the very least, we could have given all those Solyndra employees real jobs, and for a fraction of the cost.
     
  8. renewed, Nov 14, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011

    renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #8
    http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm

    One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

    Solvents
    Diesel fuelMotor Oil
    Bearing Grease
    Ink
    Floor Wax
    Ballpoint Pens
    Football Cleats
    Upholstery
    Sweaters
    Boats
    Insecticides
    Bicycle Tires
    Sports Car Bodies
    Nail Polish
    Fishing lures
    Dresses
    Tires
    Golf Bags
    Perfumes
    Cassettes
    Dishwasher parts
    Tool Boxes
    Shoe Polish
    Motorcycle Helmet
    Caulking
    Petroleum Jelly
    Transparent Tape
    CD Player
    Faucet Washers
    Antiseptics
    Clothesline
    Curtains
    Food Preservatives
    Basketballs
    Soap
    Vitamin Capsules
    Antihistamines
    Purses
    Shoes
    Dashboards
    Cortisone
    Deodorant
    Footballs
    Putty
    Dyes
    Panty Hose
    Refrigerant
    Percolators
    Life Jackets
    Rubbing Alcohol
    Linings
    Skis
    TV Cabinets
    Shag Rugs
    Electrician's Tape
    Tool Racks
    Car Battery Cases
    Epoxy
    Paint
    Mops
    Slacks
    Insect Repellent
    Oil Filters
    Umbrellas
    Yarn
    Fertilizers
    Hair Coloring
    Roofing
    Toilet Seats
    Fishing Rods
    Lipstick
    Denture Adhesive
    Linoleum
    Ice Cube Trays
    Synthetic Rubber
    Speakers
    Plastic Wood
    Electric Blankets
    Glycerin
    Tennis Rackets
    Rubber Cement
    Fishing Boots
    Dice
    Nylon Rope
    Candles
    Trash Bags
    House Paint
    Water Pipes
    Hand Lotion
    Roller Skates
    Surf Boards
    Shampoo
    Wheels
    Paint Rollers
    Shower Curtains
    Guitar Strings
    Luggage
    Aspirin
    Safety Glasses
    Antifreeze
    Football Helmets
    Awnings
    Eyeglasses
    Clothes
    Toothbrushes
    Ice Chests
    Footballs
    Combs
    CD's & DVD's
    Paint Brushes
    Detergents
    Vaporizers
    Balloons
    Sun Glasses
    Tents
    Heart Valves
    Crayons
    Parachutes
    Telephones
    Enamel
    Pillows
    Dishes
    Cameras
    Anesthetics
    Artificial Turf
    Artificial limbs
    Bandages
    Dentures
    Model Cars
    Folding Doors
    Hair Curlers
    Cold cream
    Movie film
    Soft Contact lenses
    Drinking Cups
    Fan Belts
    Car Enamel
    Shaving Cream
    Ammonia
    Refrigerators
    Golf Balls
    Toothpaste
    Gasoline
     
  9. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    Because moving it via pipeline is more economical and safer than having it moved long distances by truck. It frees up contestation on our highways, can move more goods than a tanker truck, etc.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    How much of that 22.6 gallons of oil isn't used for this? That's fuel too.
     
  11. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #11
    Plus we'll no longer need as many truck drivers and the truck manufacturers can lay off a few folks because they won't need as many trucks. :D

    I'm not convinced this pipeline is desirable in the proposed route.
     
  12. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #12
    As I recall, senators from some of the states involved also objected because local landowners were worried about pipeline safety. These were not environmentalists, but rather conservative farmers who were worried that their future ability to utilize their own land would be affected.

    I strongly support environmentalism, but this pipeline seems necessary for our mid-term future. We aren't going off of petroleum completely anytime in the next 30 years. We need Canada's supply not only so we can be better insulated against supply shocks, but also so we (ironically) pollute less because a pipeline uses far less energy than tankers circumnavigating the globe.
     
  13. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    I am not all that informed about the route of the pipeline, but in concept I support it. Pipeline is the best way to transport oil, but it needs to stay out of environmental sensitive areas, etc. Overall, we just need to be smart about building it.
     
  14. Maui macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #14
    Thanks for the chuckle. :D
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    Our dependence on oil HAS to stop at some point. When should we wait until? When it runs out? Oops. I rather see our limited resources put towards our needs for the future rather then on a commodity that is firmly rooted in the past. I'd feel different if there was an unlimited supply of it in Canada. But there isn't.

    Agreed, but oil is a finite resource. What do we do with that big ol' pipe when the oil is all gone?
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16
    Pipelines move more liquids than oil. It also transports chemicals.
     
  17. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
  18. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #18
    The majority of Canadians don't want this pipeline to go through but unfortunatley our government cares more about your energy security, your jobs, your economy than it does our own.

    We'll just roll over as we usually do . . . sigh :(
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    It must be devastating to be living in a nation with exportable energy reserves and a market seeking to buy them.

    I mean it's not like the border trade can possibly help grow other sectors in your economy.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    The Solyndra employees were making a product —*granted one built on a flawed business model —*but the company was real.

    I tend to agree. The Canadian tar sands will still be burned by extracted and burned by somebody, better it be at the end result of a well-constructed pipeline rather than some ad hoc solution that results in more environmental incidents.

    As for the White House's leadership, if they thought this was a sop to the environmental movement, they've got to realize that greens won't be bought off by delaying a major project, and second, are environmentalists all that likely to support a party that thinks global warming is a sham and wants to shutter the EPA?

    It's a time for the White House to lead and make a case for its decisions.
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    You all ready get our oil, via an quasi-criminal "deal". How about WE send you finished products, then we will have the jobs that deal with the raw crude. :p
     
  22. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #22
    Sadly, there are probably ways to make most of the above list without using Crude Oil that will never see that light of day.

    I know that the University I go to has developed "Organic" Plastics, thy just need to fix the smell.
     
  23. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Probably the same farmers who were bitching about wind towers going in until they started getting checks for use of their land. Nebraska is a perfect state to put the pipe through, its practically all farm, roads, and ghost towns.-
     
  24. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    Thanks guys. So should we be perpetuating the use of fossil fuels or aggressively moving to other better sources? I believe progress is being made to create plastic from sources other than oil.
     
  25. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #25
    Yes, there are ways, although since plastic is essentially a hydrocarbon product, it's going to involve hydrocarbons (whether renewable or not), so there may or may not be much of an environmental free lunch. In the broader sense, the transition to renewable / environmentally low-impact is broader than just energy production/consumption but also has to do with the things we make.

    We know economic recession/depression does wonders for reducing our dependence on oil. A number of economists pointed out that the peak oil catastrophe didn't necessarily make sense because price would go up gradually and increasing price would drive down demand. But these don't seem like fully satisfactory options, innit?

    And, since no one else is mentioning the pink elephant in the room... scenarios like China buying the oil and causing the same (or worse) environmental impact with it than the US would have (and simultaneously positioning itself better for a post-oil future than the US is) probably ought to be part of the discussion.

    Honestly, I think Washington is floundering on energy strategy in a way that Beijing is not. I happen to think the green bet is one worth taking, but broadly speaking, just adding pipelines in Canada with some kind of vague "find more, use less" rhetoric is as much of a stalling tactic as anything that the administration has been doing. The left is not implementing its vision of energy strategy, but I don't think the right can fairly be accused of even having an energy strategy.
     

Share This Page