The pipeline is a great investment for big oil to continue its run of obscene profits at the expense of others, unless the price of oil drops and stays below, maybe $40 a barrel, or so. (Maybe not even that low.) Then it becomes a bad investment for them. What the Canadians have is relatively expensive to produce.
Oil is a global commodity. Who the Saudis sell their oil to, is not as much a factor, as how much they produce, when it comes to the price.
Oil is a world commodity and it finds its own price (though also manipulated by the cartels). The US is not going to get a discount on oil just because there is a pipeline across the land. If there is a competitor who wants the oil it will go to the highest bidder. Basic economics.
Lois
The pipeline is a great investment for big oil to continue its run of obscene profits at the expense of others, unless the price of oil drops and stays below, maybe $40 a barrel, or so. (Maybe not even that low.) Then it becomes a bad investment for them. What the Canadians have is relatively expensive to produce.
Oil is a global commodity. Who the Saudis sell their oil to, is not as much a factor, as how much they produce, when it comes to the price.
Oil is a world commodity and it finds its own price (though also manipulated by the cartels). The US is not going to get a discount on oil just because there is a pipeline across the land. If there is a competitor who wants the oil it will go to the highest bidder. Basic economics.
Lois
Partly correct, but a big part of the price of oil, is the shipping. Once the pipeline is built, shipping is free and is as simple a opening the valve. This will make Canadian oil cheaper and the USA more secure at the same time.
The pipeline is a great investment for big oil to continue its run of obscene profits at the expense of others, unless the price of oil drops and stays below, maybe $40 a barrel, or so. (Maybe not even that low.) Then it becomes a bad investment for them. What the Canadians have is relatively expensive to produce.
Oil is a global commodity. Who the Saudis sell their oil to, is not as much a factor, as how much they produce, when it comes to the price.
Oil is a world commodity and it finds its own price (though also manipulated by the cartels). The US is not going to get a discount on oil just because there is a pipeline across the land. If there is a competitor who wants the oil it will go to the highest bidder. Basic economics.
Lois
Partly correct, but a big part of the price of oil, is the shipping. Once the pipeline is built, shipping is free and is as simple a opening the valve. This will make Canadian oil cheaper and the USA more secure at the same time.
It will be the same base price for everyone and it will still go to the highest bidder.
The pipeline is a great investment for big oil to continue its run of obscene profits at the expense of others, unless the price of oil drops and stays below, maybe $40 a barrel, or so. (Maybe not even that low.) Then it becomes a bad investment for them. What the Canadians have is relatively expensive to produce.
Oil is a global commodity. Who the Saudis sell their oil to, is not as much a factor, as how much they produce, when it comes to the price.
Oil is a world commodity and it finds its own price (though also manipulated by the cartels). The US is not going to get a discount on oil just because there is a pipeline across the land. If there is a competitor who wants the oil it will go to the highest bidder. Basic economics.
Lois
Partly correct, but a big part of the price of oil, is the shipping. Once the pipeline is built, shipping is free and is as simple a opening the valve. This will make Canadian oil cheaper and the USA more secure at the same time.
It will bw the same base price for everyone and it will still go to the highest bidder.
But we will be safer from foreign extortion, and with wind, solar and agricultural fuels getting better and more wide spread, we will also be closer to energy independence from an angry World, and Canada will become a better ally.
Renewable and clean energy is already here, try and see how many tons of batteries that it takes to move a truckload of food to Walmart. It's a simple math equation, not a political cause, I want a clean Earth too, and as a 50 year old, I can say that the Osprey, is all over my state now, and that I never saw one as a kid, so progress is being made. Seriously, if turbochargers, worked, wouldn't they be law on all vehicles? if electric cars worked, why aren't they the law too. If climate change and global warming is caused by humanity, what melted the last ice age.
Energy production is not a political cause? The Koch brothers and all of their high dollar think tanks are glad you believe that.
Your questions about why things aren't just automatically law, suggests some lack of understanding about how laws are made. So you are probably, also, not aware that policies that are put in place in the U.S., almost always, somehow, are in accordance with what the wealthiest individuals and entities happen to want.
Do we really need oil? Yes. For lubricating things and making plastics. But mostly we need oil, just because that is what we have the political and economical and physical infrastructure for.
Hydrogen can be made with water and wind, and power the trucks that you are worried won't make it to Walmart without oil.
It would be feasible to transition, starting now, to a solar/wind/hydrogen powered economy with very little need for oil/coal/natural gas. But will this happen in our lifetimes? No. It would be feasible, but it's not actually feasible, because of political and economic influences. So progressives will continue to use dirty energy and maybe feel guilty about it. Reactionary conservatives will gleefully continue using dirty energy and resolve any pesky cognitive dissonance by resolutely denying that humans can damage the planet.
The pipeline is a great investment for big oil to continue its run of obscene profits at the expense of others, unless the price of oil drops and stays below, maybe $40 a barrel, or so. (Maybe not even that low.) Then it becomes a bad investment for them. What the Canadians have is relatively expensive to produce.
Oil is a global commodity. Who the Saudis sell their oil to, is not as much a factor, as how much they produce, when it comes to the price.
Oil is a world commodity and it finds its own price (though also manipulated by the cartels). The US is not going to get a discount on oil just because there is a pipeline across the land. If there is a competitor who wants the oil it will go to the highest bidder. Basic economics.
Lois
Partly correct, but a big part of the price of oil, is the shipping. Once the pipeline is built, shipping is free and is as simple a opening the valve. This will make Canadian oil cheaper and the USA more secure at the same time.
It will bw the same base price for everyone and it will still go to the highest bidder.
But we will be safer from foreign extortion, and with wind, solar and agricultural fuels getting better and more wide spread, we will also be closer to energy independence from an angry World, and Canada will become a better ally.
How long do you think it will take for wind, solar and agricultural fuels to make a dent in the world need for petroleum products, assuming those things could even be substantial competition for it? So far there is no indication it can be. Those things will never be more than an adjunct to fossil-fuel power. The only real alternative is likely to be nuclear power.
LL
How long do you think it will take for wind, solar and agricultural fuels to make a dent in the world need for petroleum products, assuming those things could even be substantial competition for it? So far there is no indication it can be. Those things will never be more than an adjunct to fossil-fuel power. The only real alternative is likely to be nuclear power.
LL
Nuclear energy, as it stands now, is also dirty (radiation, which can pose a threat for eons, is not good for children and other living things).
Really, the sun shines just about everywhere. The wind blows most places. Earth is a water planet. We make energy from solar, wind, and water (hydrogen). Wind/solar/hydrogen could be sufficient for our energy needs. It is a matter of scale and improving efficiency. We already have what we need to make it happen, except for the organized will (i.e, the political and economic motivation).
But, alas, the political and economic motivation is overwhelmingly, still, on the side of the cheap and easy and dirty fuels. So you are very likely right about clean renewables only making a dent anytime soon. But to say "never", is going too far, I think.
Still, (and) getting back to the topic of this thread:
Perhaps humans will not maintain an ever-increasing technologically advancing society, where clean energy will, eventually be the norm. Considering 1/2 of our country puts leaders in power who seem to hate science, I would say the eventual outcome, is a toss-up.
Partly correct, but a big part of the price of oil, is the shipping. Once the pipeline is built, shipping is free and is as simple a opening the valve. This will make Canadian oil cheaper and the USA more secure at the same time.
Trans Canada is a Chinese owned corporation and the oil from the Canadian tar sands will not hit the U.S. market. You really should research things before believing the propaganda the Koch Brothers throw at us.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/
WEDNESDAY, NOV 19, 2014 | LINDSAY ABRAMS
House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board
Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.
The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups." The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.
Why do Republicans/Libertarians believe our "Environment" is something to be held in contempt?
I mean how disconnected and stupid can ya get?
Do you drive a car? or use any type of mass transit? Do you eat food that was moved by truck?
Answer yes and you want the Keystone pipeline
How did we manage all these years without it?
Lois
We never managed without any of that........
Without any of what? We were talking about the Keystone Pipeline. Apparently you have a problem focusing on the subject at hand-- a failing of theists everywhere. You are too busy trying to support your ideas without evidence to follow an argument rationally. But, never mind. We knew that before you began. You've just confirmed our doubts about you each time you post.
Lois
How long do you think it will take for wind, solar and agricultural fuels to make a dent in the world need for petroleum products, assuming those things could even be substantial competition for it? So far there is no indication it can be. Those things will never be more than an adjunct to fossil-fuel power. The only real alternative is likely to be nuclear power.
LL
Nuclear energy, as it stands now, is also dirty (radiation, which can pose a threat for eons, is not good for children and other living things).
Really, the sun shines just about everywhere. The wind blows most places. Earth is a water planet. We make energy from solar, wind, and water (hydrogen). Wind/solar/hydrogen could be sufficient for our energy needs. It is a matter of scale and improving efficiency. We already have what we need to make it happen, except for the organized will (i.e, the political and economic motivation).
But, alas, the political and economic motivation is overwhelmingly, still, on the side of the cheap and easy and dirty fuels. So you are very likely right about clean renewables only making a dent anytime soon. But to say "never", is going too far, I think.
Still, (and) getting back to the topic of this thread:
Perhaps humans will not maintain an ever-increasing technologically advancing society, where clean energy will, eventually be the norm. Considering 1/2 of our country puts leaders in power who seem to hate science, I would say the eventual outcome, is a toss-up.
It will happen eventually. But not in our, our children's or our grandchildren's lifetime.
Lois
It will happen eventually. But not in our, our children's or our grandchildren's lifetime.
It takes a successful complex society that can make long term commitments to build nuke plants.
In forty years I wager we won't recognize our society -
You know those little details, like the rising destructive impacts of rising seas, coupled with extreme storm events;
battering coastal infrastructure… with their unknowable cascading consequences.
Increasingly severe drought's, torrential rain events, impacting farming/agriculture
not to mention biological timing getting whacked out of sync... with their unknowable cascading consequences.
not to mention the various bugs and spores that are going to love our warming world.
Heck I overheard some big wigs today discussing their problems with securing their traditional Olive Oil shipments.
And lookie what popped up on the internet, when I looked,
http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-and-milling/blight-threatens-olive-crops-italy/40947
CAGW will take on all sorts of faces...
http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/
http://mbio.asm.org/content/1/1/e00061-10.full
Our grandkids will have their hands way full of way more immediate problems than dreams of building more mega nukes.
OK, ok, those that want can still ignore what's happening with our cryosphere and atmosphere and oceans and biosphere today…
but that won't last too much longer.
OK, ok, those that want can still ignore what's happening with our cryosphere and atmosphere and oceans and biosphere today…
but that won't last too much longer.
I want you to be correct about that, but I don't see it. I see an intransigent and substantial core within our population who are successfully denying the problem. And I don't see much sign of that abating.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/
WEDNESDAY, NOV 19, 2014 | LINDSAY ABRAMS
House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board
Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.
The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups." The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.
Why do Republicans/Libertarians believe our "Environment" is something to be held in contempt?
I mean how disconnected and stupid can ya get?
It isn't so much contempt but as a source for profit. If it destroys the environment, "Oh, well. Maybe there will be another opportunity for profit in fixing it." Meanwhile they will fight tooth and nail to keep the government from interfering in their exploitation. Yes, that is also an extreme form of contempt.
Lois
OK, ok, those that want can still ignore what's happening with our cryosphere and atmosphere and oceans and biosphere today…
but that won't last too much longer.
I want you to be correct about that, but I don't see it.
I see an intransigent and substantial core within our population who are successfully denying the problem.
And I don't see much sign of that abating.
:down: Ain't it the truth, I think you misunderstood me.
I mean with the news coming out of Antarctica, give it another couple decades, {at most the way it's looking}
before our coastal infrastructure starts getting destroyed and lost on a big scale, be no more ignoring that everything has changed big time.
high sea level...
more moisture in the air...
way the hell more heat and energy for those
hurricane winds and such…
And they'll be praying to God to save them.
And damning Barbara Streisand and lefties for their miseries.
West Antarctic melt rate has tripled in last decade
December 2, 2014
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141202183313.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Changing Antarctic winds create new sea level threat
July 7, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stronger winds may explain puzzling growth of sea ice in Antarctica, model shows
September 18, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Coastal Antarctic permafrost melting faster than expected: Arctic-like melt rates appearing in Coastal Antarctica
July 24, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss
June 13, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New insight into accelerating summer ice melt on the Antarctic Peninsula
April 14, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Summer melt season getting longer on Antarctic Peninsula
March 27, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Warm ocean currents cause majority of ice loss from Antarctica
April 25, 2012
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NASA study examines Antarctic sea ice increases
November 13, 2012
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change
November 11, 2012
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Warm ocean currents cause majority of ice loss from Antarctica
April 25, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/
WEDNESDAY, NOV 19, 2014 | LINDSAY ABRAMS
House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board
Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.
The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups." The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.
Why do Republicans/Libertarians believe our "Environment" is something to be held in contempt?
I mean how disconnected and stupid can ya get?
It's connected to religion. Their brains have been so addled by religious indoctrination and they are so used to justifying irrational ideas that they can't think rationally about anything.
Lois
Osama Bin Ladin, once U.S. public enemy number one, and the orchestrator of the most violent attack on the USA ever, was from Saudi Arabia. Thus buying oil from Canada, a U.S. ally, is a great idea, as in a time of global strife, the USA could and would gladly defend Canada from it's enemies.
However you want to fund our enemies.........
Think.
We can buy oil from Canada without the pipeline and its damaging aspects. Buying it the old fashioned way wll have the same effect in the long run. Just because there is no pipeline doesn't mean we will buy our oil from the middle east.
Lois
It will happen eventually. But not in our, our children's or our grandchildren's lifetime.
It takes a successful complex society that can make long term commitments to build nuke plants.
In forty years I wager we won't recognize our society -
You know those little details, like the rising destructive impacts of rising seas, coupled with extreme storm events;
battering coastal infrastructure… with their unknowable cascading consequences.
Increasingly severe drought's, torrential rain events, impacting farming/agriculture
not to mention biological timing getting whacked out of sync... with their unknowable cascading consequences.
not to mention the various bugs and spores that are going to love our warming world.
Heck I overheard some big wigs today discussing their problems with securing their traditional Olive Oil shipments.
And lookie what popped up on the internet, when I looked,
http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-and-milling/blight-threatens-olive-crops-italy/40947
CAGW will take on all sorts of faces...
http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/
http://mbio.asm.org/content/1/1/e00061-10.full
Our grandkids will have their hands way full of way more immediate problems than dreams of building more mega nukes.
OK, ok, those that want can still ignore what's happening with our cryosphere and atmosphere and oceans and biosphere today…
but that won't last too much longer.
It's human nature to ignore danger until the last possible minute. Mindless "conservatism" is the biggest drag on human progress. :(
Conservatives notice danger only when it interferes with profits, most of the time after the damage is done.
Lois