Keystone Pipeline

[merrylander]

The irony is that Petro Canada has only a small stake in the tar sands, the majority of companies operating there are American. Regardless if the keystone is not completed it will run to the pacific coast under a different name and the oil will go to China.

My understanding is that the extraction process has undergone improvements that make it about par with fracking - both leave a lot of polluted water to deal with.

[Oerets]

I for one think it will happen. But know once built the jobs will be few and far between. Also feel the oil will go to the highest bidder. Only the foolish believe the USA will benefit anymore then lets say China.

Plus gave up a long time ago the human race would get off the oil teat and quit killing the planet. The oil companies know this and that is why plans are in place to reap profits from the coming catastrophe. Like buying up water rights...



Barney

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I for one think it will happen. But know once built the jobs will be few and far between. Also feel the oil will go to the highest bidder. Only the foolish believe the USA will benefit anymore then lets say China.

Plus gave up a long time ago the human race would get off the oil teat and quit killing the planet. The oil companies know this and that is why plans are in place to reap profits from the coming catastrophe. Like buying up water rights...

Barney

While I understand your sentiments (particularly in the 2nd paragraph), oil is a fungible resource. It really doesn't matter who gets the oil coming from these tar sands, just that it enters the world market. Also, American refinery jobs (as well as pipeline maintenance and operation) will be long-lasting, unlike the pipeline workers.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I for one think it will happen. But know once built the jobs will be few and far between. Also feel the oil will go to the highest bidder. Only the foolish believe the USA will benefit anymore then lets say

Barney

I believe it was stated on the evening new that the pipeline will realize a total of 30 permanent jobs once all is said and done.

Wonder how may people lost their property over this thing.

[finnbow]

Interestingly, the study states that transporting the oil by rail vs. pipeline would increase greenhouse emissions by 28 -42%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...peline-report/

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Meh, spend the money rebuilding the Alaskan pipeline. It is much more important the the USA than building a pipeline to Texas refineries that refine that crap oil for EXPORT.


Carl

That crap oil ?
You do not benefit every single day from petroleum ?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Interestingly, the study states that transporting the oil by rail vs. pipeline would increase greenhouse emissions by 28 -42%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...peline-report/

Totally agree plus the risk factor by rail.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by mrpots

i believe it was stated on the evening new that the pipeline will realize a total of 30 permanent jobs once all is said and done.

Wonder how may people lost their property over this thing.

msnbc?

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

That crap oil ?
You do not benefit every single day from petroleum ?

Tar sand oil is crap oil. Other than using things made of plastic, no.



Carl

[BlueStreak]

I've always believed it should be built, but only once all environmental issues, etc., have been thoroughly worked out. Beyond that, I don't see that job creation will be the largest direct asset. Once a pipeline is built, it requires very few people to maintain/operate it. Unless new refineries are built, and I doubt that will happen, long term job creation will be minimal. In the grand scheme of things, negligible, even.

I say build it, but I believe the "jobs" argument is more political than anything else, in the long run.

Dave