Nah, we didn't need any oil anyway.......

[Buckrub]

What would we do with it anyway? We haven't built a new refinery since 1976. We don't need no stinkin' gasoline around here for nuthin'.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/15/canada-moves-to-plan-b-with-keystone-xl-pipeline/

[Thumper]

This administration has been too busy ramrodding Obama Care to worry about trivial stuff like this.

[Captain]

This administration has been too busy ramrodding Obama Care to worry about trivial stuff like this.

Yep and doubling the price of gas every 4 years.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

But they are much better than any previous administration on every fiscal matter (as if that matters). I was told this the other day on here. It must be true, I read it on the internet.

Bon Jour.

[quercus alba]

I don't care which party is in charge or who's got control of the Senate or the house, they have all lost focus of what's important. I'm sick of the whole mess

[johnboy]

The proposed (and I stress 'proposed') pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat on the BC coast is far from a done deal no matter what Harper and his oil baron buddies think. There is huge opposition to the plan within the province of BC due, in part, to the nature of the product to be transported (diluted bitumin or 'dilbit' which is very nasty stuff, impossible to clean up after a spill) and the very real danger of a tanker accident in the narrow, rocky and wind swept channels they will need to travel to reach the open ocean. Think Exxon Valdez X 10.

They absolutely are increasing production from the tar sands at what seems to be a frantic pace and are desperate to find a way to get it out of Alberta to China but it seems that few people want this stuff moving through their territory and will block any attempts to do so. The natives from both the interior (pipelines) and the coast (tankers) have vowed to tie this up in court forever and if that doesn't work you can expect to see some 'civil disobedience' happening. I agree - no pipeline and no tankers.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I really don't know enough about this pipeline deal to have a valid opinion on it, although the others who've commented obviously know all the facts. So I'll just say that just because its oil doesn't make it a no brainer. There's a reason Canada wants to bring it across the US vs their own country. Its certainly not because its a shorter path either. Its because they don't want to fuck up their own environment so why not fuck up ours? Or at least take the risk to.

And since its for China, its doubly important.

BKB

[johnboy]

Another big reason for the east to west pipeline through BC and ultimately to China is the increased profit margin for the product. Oil and oil products shipped to the US of A are sold at a discount compared to the same stuff sold to China so 'money talks' and they will continue to fight to get this pipeline/tanker port in BC built.

What's happening in Alberta re the tar sands expansion is a friggin disgrace and I will hate to tell my grandkids why we all sat bye and let this happen on our watch. It seems to me that our government represents the oil industry and no longer the people of this country.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I was reading some on that issue John. I guess the tailings from that whole process are toxic to the point where nothing can really be done with them and they are a real danger to water and soil. And we're having similar debates here over fracking. I guess its really serious in Pennsylvania. People have literally had flame shoot out of their water spigots and its ruined a lot of groundwater. On the other hand its a great boost to the economy there where they've had many decades of poor economic times. There's no easy answers and IMO, no real right answer. I know political ideologies don't make one bit of difference once you've screwed up your groundwater. There won't be any politicians around to fix it I can guarantee you that.


BKB

[airbud7]

QUESTION: Will this lower GAS PRICES???

[BarryBobPosthole]

In china maybe.

BKB

[airbud7]

In china maybe.


Agree^...add 25years from now and they will laugh at us..."Thanks for the Pipeline"...

[Captain]

Agree^...add 25years from now and they will laugh at us..."Thanks for the Pipeline"...
There're laughing at us NOW......

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Big Skyz]

I believe the correct term is they will "raffing" at us. ;)

[Buckrub]

I honestly don't particularly want to live to a really old age and be a burden. BUT, I admit......it would be nice to live a long time and get to say "hahaha, I tole ya and I tole ya" to a bunch of folks.

Till then, I ain't got no proof. Just my worthless opinion.

[Penguin]

QUESTION: Will this lower GAS PRICES???

Nope. It may turn out to be a vital source of energy but it is a low quality/high cost source. Unless we discover a new low cost source of energy the cost of energy will continue to rise. We've used up the good quality cheap stuff... it's gone.

Will

[Buckrub]

And when it's ALL gone, then we'll discover a new source and method. Till then, not..... My guess is that the new source will be abundantly available in........ Uganda.

[Penguin]

Maybe so... hard to beat a billion years of stored solar energy stored in hydrocarbons though. There probably isn't another source that will provide as stable a source at anywhere near the cost. We've been trying to find one for a long time with no luck. It's having consequences even now.

Will

[Buckrub]

Cosmic plasma ether bars.

Either that, or Electronic Sunshine Converted Molecular Kinects.

[Buckrub]

Actually, it'll be Fusion.

[Penguin]

Mebbe so.

Been a lot of work on it over the decades. A lot of my colleagues put it in the same class as hydrogen "Its the energy source of the future... and it always will be." :)

Honestly it is a very difficult thing to get accurate data on. There are a lot of powerful interest groups who have vested interest in ensuring that nothing too scary comes to light. What we can glean from just looking around is scary enough. So far it looks like the Peak Oil guys were wrong (at least in the short term) and that the guys who just dismissed Peak Oil were equally wrong (at least thus far).

When we hit the conventional peak we just moved on the next best/costly source and continued on. Things got a bit more expensive, standards of living dropped a bit, the uptick may well have been the needle that pricked the housing bubble. But most important, as far as the long term goes, is that the available ~real~ capital that we as a society have left over to invest in finding a substitute (or at least taking a different direction in energy) has shrunk.

I think this is telling. This scenario will probably be repeated as we work our way through the tight oil that has helped us out recently. When this play starts to sputter (probably in the next handful of years) we'll move on to the next most expensive source, take a hit economically, and move on. With slightly lower standards of living, less real capital left over, and a bit harsher way of life. We unimaginable amounts of energy on the planet. But as they grow more expensive and of less quality and harder to get at... well they become impotent as far as supporting the kind of societies we have grown used to.

Will