Alberta Pleads Keystone XL Case in NYT Ad

[Guest American Woman]

In your opinion.

I differ.

Wait for it ...

'What Obama thinks' has not changed Americans' views on anything thus far, as you have nothing to back up your claim. Edited August 5, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

'What Obama thinks' has not changed Americans' views on anything thus far, as you have nothing to back up your claim.

Nor you.

Wait for it ...

[Smallc]

Nor you? The polls thus far are on her side. There's nothing on your side. Obama is wrong...and against public opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

Nor you.

Wait for it ...

Actually, yes, I do. As I said, 'what Obama thinks' has never made Americans poll differently in the past on any other issues. Methinks you are going to be waiting a long, long time if you expect it to be any different regarding the pipeline.

[dre]

Nor you? The polls thus far are on her side. There's nothing on your side. Obama is wrong...and against public opinion.

Obama is not necessarily wrong.

Like I said... US imports are at a 20 year low, and theres a glut of new production online with more to come. They have also started exporting again to places like Ontario (which is where we SHOULD build a pipeline to).

As for public opinion thats probably because people have been duped into thinking the project will create a net gain in jobs. The reality is pipelines produce very few jobs once construction is complete, and the project will most likely result in a net LOSS of jobs over the long term, since more human labor is required to move oil by truck and train than through a pipeline.

You can pretend this is a slamdunk if you like but its not. Its debatable whether or not this project is in either Canadian or American interests.

[Smallc]

We should be building all of these pipelines. That's been the point all alone. Canadian production is set to increase dramatically. There is enough for all 4 (or is it 5) proposed pipelines.

[Shady]

We should be building all of these pipelines. That's been the point all alone. Canadian production is set to increase dramatically. There is enough for all 4 (or is it 5) proposed pipelines.

Exactly. Plus, North America could use more pipelines for the natural gas boom that is just taking place. It's cheaper and cleaner than oil too. All of this would be great for the economy of both countries.

[jacee]

We should be building all of these pipelines. That's been the point all alone. Canadian production is set to increase dramatically. There is enough for all 4 (or is it 5) proposed pipelines.

Profit motive abounds, but is there public and political will for building pipeline holusbolus?

It's going to be a lengthy process, every foot of pipeline, a public relations feat.

And we'll each consider the consequences in our own backyards.

[Smallc]

Profit motive abounds, but is there public and political will for building pipeline holusbolus?

It's going to be a lengthy process, every foot of pipeline, a public relations feat.

Then the oil will get to market by truck and rail. Let's see how people feel about that now.

[jacee]

Exactly. Plus, North America could use more pipelines for the natural gas boom that is just taking place. It's cheaper and cleaner than oil too. All of this would be great for the economy of both countries.

Punctured gas lines under pressure will incinerate a square kilometre.

I hope we'll be thinking carefully about this.

[dre]

We should be building all of these pipelines. That's been the point all alone. Canadian production is set to increase dramatically. There is enough for all 4 (or is it 5) proposed pipelines

It would make more sense to build one large capacity line to ontaria where our demand and refining capacity are, and where we can ship from as well.

But thats not the point I was arguing. You proclaimed that "Obama is wrong". Thats not necessarily the case, and more has happened in the US towards the goal of energy independance and energy security, while Obama has been president then under every administration in the last 50 years combined.

[jacee]

Then the oil will get to market by truck and rail. Let's see how people feel about that now.

Same process.

It's just a process, and harder than they thought. Too bad.

And despite voting himself omnipotent decider, Harper too recognizes the political price he'll pay for ramming pipelines through communities that don't want them and want a say.

It has to unfold ...

Edited August 5, 2013 by jacee

[dre]

Then the oil will get to market by truck and rail. Let's see how people feel about that now.

If you build a pipeline to Ontario then youll eliminate almost all the tanker traffic to our east coast, and cut our exports by about 40%. Thats what we should focus on first.

And if Canadians are going to let an oil company build a pipleline on 10's of thousands of acres worth of public land then we should do it in exchange for permanently lower prices, so that this national resource does us some good.

Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91 Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78 Egypt Cairo $0.65 Nigeria Lagos $0.38 Venezuela Caracas $0.12

Theres the price for a gallon of gas in some other nations with their own supplies. What are we paying? $5.50?

[Smallc]

I'd much rather live in those places. Anyway, most of the proposed pipelines will probably become reality...but not Keystone XL. That's the way it's looking.

[dre]

I'd much rather live in those places.

Id like to live HERE with $2 per gallon gas.

[Shady]

Id like to live HERE with $2 per gallon gas.

Then let's build refineries and pipelines, and cut some of the ridiculous taxes built into every gallon of gas. The government makes more money per gallon than oil companies do.

[jacee]

I'd much rather live in those places. Anyway, most of the proposed pipelines will probably become reality...but not Keystone XL. That's the way it's looking.

Point being ... people of the country benefit directly for taking the risks.

Seems like pretty good PR to me!

Why didn't they think of that already?!

Map: Oil prices

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EP.PMP.SGAS.CD/countries?display=map

Edited August 6, 2013 by jacee

[Smallc]

Are you trying to tell me that we haven't benefited from the oil revenue?

[jacee]

Are you trying to tell me that we haven't benefited from the oil revenue?

No.

I'm suggesting a direct incentive to the people might help their case too.

Edited August 6, 2013 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

The bean counters say that as long as there is excess capacity for bitumen refining in the USA, it does not make economic sense to invest $5 - $10 billion for domestic capability. Part of the paralysis stems from the NEP disaster from years ago.

The U.S. is going nuts in North Dakota right now to develop shale oil and gas.

Perhaps what you meant to say is "The US is nuts to develop shale oil and gas".

Even these numbers may be uncertain due to the recent history of shale oil production and the lack of sufficient accumulated experience. At the same time depletion rates in shale wells are very high and estimated for the Bakken shale wells to be 69 per cent in the first year and 94 per cent in the first five years. This is a huge logistical problem as so many oil wells have to be drilled to stabilise production with its negative impact on costs and environment.

Shale Oil is No Threat to Oil Producers.