Keystone pipeline

[Fixer 166]

Just curious what you think. Are you for or against the big keystone pipeline? Also, why did you vote the way you did?

[Lady tehMa]

For. I think we need the economic boost.

[wthwyt]

Would be a boost for the economy, only 1 concern don't F up the west coast with a spill.

[CJT84]

For as it's economically sound for everyone involved and land spills are a million times easier to clean up when they happen, not to mention pipelines have more fail safes than rigs and tankers in general and when they do burst in extreme circumstances, the amount of oil spilled tends to be minimal.

Surely it saves on greenhouse gases anyway now the oil isn't shipped by trucks?

[xjeepguy]

Just curious what you think. Are you for or against the big keystone pipeline? Also, why did you vote the way you did?

I voted YES ! Probably for the same reason you'll vote yes

[Fixer 166]

I actually voted no.
The longer we feed the huge incautious appetite for oil the longer we will go on sucking mother earth dry for our own profit. Humans will never truly look at, or invest in greener energy or fuels until it becomes difficult or expensive to get oil. Only when oil costs get so high and fuel follows will the need and demand for alternate energy become a priority. We all know what the mother of invention is,...necessity. Until then I will stick to my comparison of humans to locusts. Locusts move into a farmers field, eat every bit of food, then die if starvation. Just as we are are currently doing to our huge globe of a farmers field. And sadly I am as guilty, if not more so, as anyone.

[The Green Barbarian]

Would be a boost for the economy, only 1 concern don't F up the west coast with a spill.

that's the Enbridge pipeline, this pipeline is running from Hardisty Alberta to Texas - so not coming anywhere near the West Coast. Several professional pipeline "experts" like Jeanne Garafalo and Daryl Hannah have been arrested protesting this pipeline. Leonardo DiCaprio has been "tweeting" about it, but won't risk a criminal record getting arrested over it. Good to know the US economy is at the mercy of these people, whose lives, and livelihood, have nothing to do with whether this pipeline goes ahead or not.

[The Green Barbarian]

I actually voted no.
The longer we feed the huge incautious appetite for oil the longer we will go on sucking mother earth dry for our own profit. Humans will never truly look at, or invest in greener energy or fuels until it becomes difficult or expensive to get oil. Only when oil costs get so high and fuel follows will the need and demand for alternate energy become a priority. We all know what the mother of invention is,...necessity. Until then I will stick to my comparison of humans to locusts. Locusts move into a farmers field, eat every bit of food, then die if starvation. Just as we are are currently doing to our huge globe of a farmers field. And sadly I am as guilty, if not more so, as anyone.

I am sure this attitude makes you feel really good about yourself, but reality is this pipeline will create jobs and will deliver the crude at a much lower cost to the environment than if it has to be trucked or shipped via train. While I agree about your necessity being the mother of invention comment, this pipeline is not going to be the make or break event that causes the entire world to switch to some other energy source, that has yet to be invented yet. Instead, the Americans would just get their oil from some other source, like doing more deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (and we all know how that went last year), or get it from the scumbag running Venezuela (which also produces a lot of "dirty oil" from oilsands, yet no one says "boo" about that for some unknown reason), or the scumbags running Saudi Arabia, or the scumbags running Iran, or the scumbags running Sudan, or the scumbags running .....well you get the picture.

[GordonH]

Again typical of Canada pipe jobs to south of the border, instead of refining here.

Build the pipeline but instead of near raw product sent, completely processed product thru that pipeline. Keep jobs & increase employment in Canada. So GB would that work for you.

[Fixer 166]

I actually voted no.
The longer we feed the huge incautious appetite for oil the longer we will go on sucking mother earth dry for our own profit. Humans will never truly look at, or invest in greener energy or fuels until it becomes difficult or expensive to get oil. Only when oil costs get so high and fuel follows will the need and demand for alternate energy become a priority. We all know what the mother of invention is,...necessity. Until then I will stick to my comparison of humans to locusts. Locusts move into a farmers field, eat every bit of food, then die if starvation. Just as we are are currently doing to our huge globe of a farmers field. And sadly I am as guilty, if not more so, as anyone.

I am sure this attitude makes you feel really good about yourself, but reality is this pipeline will create jobs and will deliver the crude at a much lower cost to the environment than if it has to be trucked or shipped via train. While I agree about your necessity being the mother of invention comment, this pipeline is not going to be the make or break event that causes the entire world to switch to some other energy source, that has yet to be invented yet. Instead, the Americans would just get their oil from some other source, like doing more deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (and we all know how that
went last year), or get it from the scumbag running Venezuela (which also produces a lot of "dirty oil"
from oilsands, yet no one says "boo" about that for some unknown reason), or the scumbags running
Saudi Arabia, or the scumbags running Iran, or the scumbags running Sudan, or the scumbags running
.....well you get the picture.

So do you think jobs and oil are more important than the only world we have? You do realize that world wide demand will very soon out way the supply of crude left on the planet. Is your statement kinda like saying a kid is going to buy drugs from a dealer anyway so it might as well be me and that makes it ok?

[wthwyt]

Would be a boost for the economy, only 1 concern don't F up the west coast with a spill.

that's the Enbridge pipeline, this pipeline is running from Hardisty Alberta to Texas - so not coming anywhere near the West Coast. Several professional pipeline "experts" like Jeanne Garafalo and Daryl Hannah have been arrested protesting this pipeline. Leonardo DiCaprio has been "tweeting" about it, but won't risk a criminal record getting arrested over it. Good to know the US economy is at the mercy of these people, whose lives, and livelihood, have nothing to do with whether this pipeline goes ahead or not.

My mistake, I agree with hockeyfan keep the refining jobs in Canada.

[The Green Barbarian]

Again typical of Canada pipe jobs to south of the border, instead of refining here.

Build the pipeline but instead of near raw product sent, completely processed product thru that pipeline. Keep jobs & increase employment in Canada. So GB would that work for you.

in a perfect world, you bet. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, so at this point I'll take what I can get.

[wthwyt]

Again typical of Canada pipe jobs to south of the border, instead of refining here.

Build the pipeline but instead of near raw product sent, completely processed product thru that pipeline. Keep jobs & increase employment in Canada. So GB would that work for you.

in a perfect world, you bet. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, so at this point I'll take what I can get.

Or if Canadians grew a pair.

[The Green Barbarian]

So do you think jobs and oil are more important than the only world we have? You do realize that world wide demand will very soon out way the supply of crude left on the planet. Is your statement kinda like saying a kid is going to buy drugs from a dealer anyway so it might as well be me and that makes it ok?

well it's not like a drug dealer - that's just a completely idiotic comparison. If you look at life expectancy (among many other indicators) in the past hundred years, mankind has greatly benefited from hydrocarbons. We've gone farther in so many ways, thanks to the energy we've unlocked from hydrocarbons. If you think that every generation up until the current one, wouldn't change places with us in a heartbeat, you'd be greatly mistaken.

As for the whole argument that we are going to be running out of oil, or supply is "soon" going to exceed demand, I say poppycock. Nutjobs (and I use the most polite terminology I can find for these people) and doomsayers have been predicting that the world was going to run out of oil since the 1960's. These same fools have been predicting that the world would run out of food by the 1970's and that there would be mass starvation. The only reason that I can see anyone is starving right now is due to corrupt governments, and biofuel subsidies causing farmland utilization to be usurped by insipid "man-made climate change" scams. One day, like a weatherman who predicts rain every day, these "gloom and doomers" will be right, but by then "necessity will breed innovation". That day isn't in our lifetimes. If you need any further proof of that, take a drive up to Fort McMurray sometime.

As for the whole argument that oil and gas is "dirty" etc so therefore we shouldn't encourage any more development (the argument that massive brainiacs like Darryl Hannah are using) I say fine. So why is it that Canada has to be the bad guy all of the time? The one oil-producing stable human-rights respecting democracy out of many oil producing thugocracies in the world, and its the one that the whackos and the corrupt fund-raising organizations like Greenpeace target. Why is that? Have you ever asked yourself that? Why are we in Canada supposed to turn off the taps and suffer massive job losses and huge economic fall-out that threaten our social programs, all because some nut-jobs out in the world say we should, to "feel better" about ourselves? Why aren't fools like Mark Ruffalo chaining themselves to fences in Riyadh, or Khartoum, or Tehran, or Caracas? Why is it that Canada is always the one that gets the "international black-eye" while these other oil producing nations get a free pass? Why should our pipeline be crapped on, while Saudi Arabia does far more environmental damage with their fleet of oil tankers belching out CO2 emissions on the open oceans? Why should Venezuela be given a free pass for producing "dirty oil" from their "tarsands" while brain-washed idiots repel off the Calgary Tower in protest? Why? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself this question?

[The Green Barbarian]

Again typical of Canada pipe jobs to south of the border, instead of refining here.

Build the pipeline but instead of near raw product sent, completely processed product thru that pipeline. Keep jobs & increase employment in Canada. So GB would that work for you.

in a perfect world, you bet. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, so at this point I'll take what I can get.

Or if Canadians grew a pair.

It's slightly more complex than that. In order to duplicate the refining capacity necessary to provide and meet the demands for refined gasoline and diesel of the US market, we'd have to spend mega-billions of dollars, I can't even speculate how many billion. And it would be tremendously inefficient given the US has already invested the capital to build the refining capacity necessary. And the US would never allow it's supply of such a vital resource to their economy be controlled by a foreign power - you can look no further than the Ukraine and what Russia does to them every winter to understand why. Also - why duplicate what has already been built just to create some jobs? The environmentalist in me (and yet just because I don't support the foolish philosophies of Greenpeace or support the complete scam that is man-made climate change, I am a greenie too - such people can exist) also says that I don't want any more refineries in Canada than we need to meet our own gas consumption needs - let the US have them.