A Complete Waste of Space

.....this is one I've been on the fence over. First off, I don't live in the region affected, so really have no dog in that part of the fight. Second, compared to many more liberal acquaintences, I am all for energy independance. However, I favor lower carbon options(nat gas, nuke, solar, wind) over oil, and especially really dirty oil gained by fucking up the earth to get it. As an investor in a major oil company, I am aware of both the upside and limitations of the sand crude being shipped to our refineries.
Anyhow, I have, of late, followed the political theater. Why? Because our two Senators, neither of whom are immediately up for election, were seen as key to getting the pipeline bill passed. Both voted against it, but the airwaves have been thick with ads from the pro-pipeline crowd, arguing it to be an economic boon, etc. So, the local paper(NewsJournal), a VERY pro-business paper, as a rule, did a study of the economic benefits last week. Turns out, this 'job creator' would have only created the same number of jobs as would building an average-size shopping mall. Further, after the construction, only 75 or so permanent long term jobs would have been created(far LESS than a mall). The oil would required some changes to the existing refineries, so that might mean more jobs, but that number is small and uncertain. Thus, the bottom line was VERY LITTLE economic gain, at the risk one always has with pipelines of environmental disaster. No doubt, the usual suspects will point out that this is a Communist plot to enrich Muslims and Community Activists, and that it means certain doom of the Democratic Party for decades. They will, of course, be wrong(as always).

just a Business Week followup:http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... nergy-bill

obsolete need, unwanted environmental risk and unlikely to be profitable enough for the oil companies.......why is it being pushed so hard, again?

The way I see it is they are going to pull the oil out pipeline or not, so the question is if we don't use it will it be shipped overseas? As for the environmental issue, what has the environmental impact been with the transportation of it over the rail system?

This is just another nail in the Democratic coffin.

Commieshit is not in Lock-Step? Not a chance!

HH

Darkhorse wrote:The way I see it is they are going to pull the oil out pipeline or not, so the question is if we don't use it will it be shipped overseas? As for the environmental issue, what has the environmental impact been with the transportation of it over the rail system?

not unless it becomes far more profitable. That oil is sitting there for a while, I suspect. It will get pulled in the future, when the sharp rise kicks in(and it will).
With any smarts, we should be essentially independant of any foreign oil by then.

It's all about profit margin. If the the oil companies can't make a big enough profit then the idea of building the pipeline becomes moot.

HappyHappy wrote:This is just another nail in the Democratic coffin.

Commieshit is not in Lock-Step? Not a chance!

HH

Seriously HH, actually try to read the posts before you reply!

Reservoir_Dog wrote:It's all about profit margin. If the the oil companies can't make a big enough profit then the idea of building the pipeline becomes moot.

bingo. The oil in the ground is merely an investment account.

I also do not have a dog in this and have not followed it much. My opinion is that a pipeline would be safer than transporting over rail or road, less moving parts with a pipeline. Not only will the bitumen from Canada be transported the light crude oil from the Williston Basin will be also. Even if production from the two areas are not at capacity now some day they will be and if there is a transportation system in place we will be ahead of the game.
As far as the political part of this I heard that a big money backer of Obama wants to build a pipeline West across Canada to the Pacific coast and ship the oil to Japan and China, I have not done any research on this subject so it might be just a bunch of bull.

Darkhorse wrote:I also do not have a dog in this and have not followed it much. My opinion is that a pipeline would be safer than transporting over rail or road, less moving parts with a pipeline. Not only will the bitumen from Canada be transported the light crude oil from the Williston Basin will be also. Even if production from the two areas are not at capacity now some day they will be and if there is a transportation system in place we will be ahead of the game.
As far as the political part of this I heard that a big money backer of Obama wants to build a pipeline West across Canada to the Pacific coast and ship the oil to Japan and China, I have not done any research on this subject so it might be just a bunch of bull.

well, someone DOES wish to do that, but the individual isn't an American....nor a financial backer of Obama. The safety issue, to me, seems a wash(pipes leak all the time, generally in small amounts), but the real political BS was around 'the Dems are trying to kill a huge jobs project'. When you are talking no more short term employment than a shopping mall build and less long term employment than a freaking bakery or meat packing plant, one has to wonder where politics reflects reality. Not that THAT disconnect is rare......