Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I would be nervous about shipping bitumen via railcars through the mountains, one bad derailment would be a huge disaster.

I was told by someone who does contract emergency cleanup for CN that we would be shocked if we knew how many derailments there were. Is that stuff public record?

[macker]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

At what cost?

Environmentally it is highly destructive as well as having the potential after it's built to be environmentally destructive. The proposed route runs right through the bread basket of the United States not to mention right over top of the biggest artesian aquifer in the United States. The pollution risks are far too high IMO to go through with this pipeline.

Not to mention the proposed pipeline goes right through First Nation's land, which risk destroying an entire culture that is deeply rooted in traditions surrounding hunting and fishing. These people are connected to their land.

Too risky, even if it creates hundreds of jobs. Maybe the U.S. will have to start making progress in alternative fuels.

Another American politican once said "The more we exploit nature, the more our options are reduced, until we have only one : to fight for survival. Have to throw at least one radical quote in there

If you look at The Pickens Plan there is clearly a lot more that the US could be doing in this area and the solution is available to them if they make the shift which it sounds like they are in the process of. Then again in 1963, the German car company Daimler Benz invented an electric car capable of fifty-three miles per day, which even now would probably be enough for 80% of car users. There are clearly alternatives out there that aren't being fully utilized....change takes time.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Cool. Good use of ad hominem fallacy.

No, I'm not at all joking. How about telling me what's wrong with my post before saying I represent moronic views. Or maybe offering a counter argument?

I think my opinions on this issue are valid ones and ones that are overlooked by people who think economy is more important than everyday necessities like food and water. As for the First Nation's land point, I think this too is a legitimate concern as preserving traditions and culture are fairly important issues.

http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/137360/

[puckhog]

It seems like many people forget or overlook the fact that this pipeline ultimately isn't about the economic benefits (which are significant), but energy. Energy that is required to produce and deliver food, water, and all the other necessities of life, not to mention all of the niceties that we enjoy. Alternative energy sources should be developed, but for now oil and gas are still desperately needed to meet the demand.

From the US's perspective I don't see how it makes more sense to import from the Middle East or South America than us, when we have a more stable political environment and a much stricter regulatory environment.

As for crossing the aquifer, there are admittedly risks involved with that, but this pipeline will be built to the highest quality standards. The bigger concern for the aquifer, though, is the 20,000+ miles of pipeline that already run across it. That's not to say there's not a risk involved with a potential spill on KXL, but the real question is whether the risk involved is outweighed by the benefit of a secure, friendly, long-term energy supply. Given the steps that will be taken to minimize the risks (not just over the aquifer, but along the whole line), I think the pipeline should go ahead.

[macker]

[QUOTE=puckhog;3497406]It seems like many people forget or overlook the fact that this pipeline ultimately isn't about the economic benefits (which are significant), but energy. Energy that is required to produce and deliver food, water, and all the other necessities of life, not to mention all of the niceties that we enjoy. Alternative energy sources should be developed, but for now oil and gas are still desperately needed to meet the demand.

From the US's perspective I don't see how it makes more sense to import from the Middle East or South America than us, when we have a more stable political environment and a much stricter regulatory environment.




True that 70% of the oil that the US imports is to be used as a transportation fuel. Also true though that Obama said that within 10 years the US would not import any oil for the middle east. The US has been without an energy plan for 40 years. There is still the natural gas option that the US could be utilizing to a much greater extent as it is the biggest natural resource that they have. To put it into perspective the US natural gas reserves are three times that of the Saudis oil reserves and they are basically not utilizing this option. There are 12 million vehicles in the world today on natural gas and the US has 130,000 of them despite having the largest natural gas reserves in the world. It makes no sense to import oil when they could use their own resources more effectively.