Keystone XL to raise gas prices in Colorado significantly

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: As opposed to the drivel that the left now spews that the shovel ready jobs that building Keystone will create is trivial. The good jobs that even unions are in favor of, funded by private capital as opposed to the government funded shovel ready jobs that did not exist? Those jobs?

Not at all. I don't dispute the construction phase jobs that will be created. That's a given. It's the long term that I'm more concerned with, environmental concerns not-withstanding. From what I've seen, the tar sands oil will be extracted whether or not the pipeline is approved. The impacts on the environment cannot be denied. That the U.S. may "contribute" to those impacts by allowing this pipeline to be built is a concern. Regardless, the pipeline will be built, whether through the U.S. or through Canada. Personally, I don't care about the "politics" in this issue. Those chips will fall where they may.

What it ultimately boils down to for me is whether or not we (the U.S.) "should" be willing to contribute to the environmental impacts caused by tar sands oil extraction. If we are, then build the damn thing. If we aren't, maybe standing on principle would be a good thing, perhaps?

What principal? Making Warren Buffet richer? There are environmental costs to not building it.

Lack of gas pipelines in third world countries force them to burn off the natural gas in petrol deposits to get to the oil they can truck out. You can see the flames at night. Creates a lot more greenhouse gases than Canada which uses the natural gas productively to extract the oil from the tar sands.

Which is better for the environment?

BlazerBob wrote: What principal? Making Warren Buffet richer? There are environmental costs to not building it.

No. Rather, by placing a higher value on the environment than our short term "wants". Building it will benefit the Koch Brothers, from what I've read. Where did Warren Buffet come from, exactly?

FredHayek wrote: Lack of gas pipelines in third world countries force them to burn off the natural gas in petrol deposits to get to the oil they can truck out. You can see the flames at night. Creates a lot more greenhouse gases than Canada which uses the natural gas productively to extract the oil from the tar sands.

Which is better for the environment?

From my perspective, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum. Neither is "better" for the environment.

ZHawke wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Lack of gas pipelines in third world countries force them to burn off the natural gas in petrol deposits to get to the oil they can truck out. You can see the flames at night. Creates a lot more greenhouse gases than Canada which uses the natural gas productively to extract the oil from the tar sands.

Which is better for the environment?

From my perspective, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum. Neither is "better" for the environment.

So the environment will be better off if the Canadian oil is trucked and shipped to China? Seems to me that if more oil is safely transported through a more responsible country in a safer way, that would be better for the environment.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: What principal? Making Warren Buffet richer? There are environmental costs to not building it.

No. Rather, by placing a higher value on the environment than our short term "wants". Building it will benefit the Koch Brothers, from what I've read. Where did Warren Buffet come from, exactly?

You have read about the Koch Brothers but nothing about Buffet regarding Keystone?

"Buffett Railroad Sees Crude Cargo Climbing 40%"

flyonthehill.com/2014/01/18/keystone-pip...-buffett-can-profit/

Do you know who Tom Steyer is?

Rick wrote: So the environment will be better off if the Canadian oil is trucked and shipped to China? Seems to me that if more oil is safely transported through a more responsible country in a safer way, that would be better for the environment.

I didn't say that, Rick. No matter how it is presented, the damages to the environment cannot be denied. Whether the oil is transported through the U.S. or by some other means, the environment in Alberta, specifically, suffers what some would term "irreparable damages" as a result of the extraction process. That's what I'm getting at. If the U.S. wants to be complicit in that environmental damage, then so be it - build the pipeline. If not, then deny the pipeline through the U.S.

BlazerBob wrote: You have read about the Koch Brothers but nothing about Buffet regarding Keystone?

"Buffett Railroad Sees Crude Cargo Climbing 40%"

flyonthehill.com/2014/01/18/keystone-pip...-buffett-can-profit/

Do you know who Tom Steyer is?

Point taken. Thank you.

Conversely, why is Buffet getting richer a problem while Koch Industries doing the same is not. I don't condone either one because they both rely on an environmentally damaging extraction process for tar sands.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: You have read about the Koch Brothers but nothing about Buffet regarding Keystone?

"Buffett Railroad Sees Crude Cargo Climbing 40%"

flyonthehill.com/2014/01/18/keystone-pip...-buffett-can-profit/

Do you know who Tom Steyer is?

Point taken. Thank you.

Conversely, why is Buffet getting richer a problem while Koch Industries doing the same is not. I don't condone either one because they both rely on an environmentally damaging extraction process for tar sands.

I did not say profits are a problem no matter who makes them. Just pointing out what I see as a double standard and how our perceptions are molded by our information sources. Can I take from your response that you did not know who Tom Steyer is?

At the end of the day we have to balance the environment with the survival of the ~7 billion people who live on the planet.

www.vhemt.org/nonsequitor.gif

There is NO promise the Canadian pipeline will employ US workers, is there? Much like the oil that will flow through it, we have not been given any guarantee of a benefit.