Keystone XL to raise gas prices in Colorado significantly

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?

But you can still see the flares from space. So much so that they outshine adjacent large cities at night. (Bakken is much worse)
Alberta’s Oil Sands Raise Flaring Emissions as Rules Lag
www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/albert...ns-as-rules-lag.html

www.cnet.com/news/hypnotic-nasa-video-ma...on-dioxide-gorgeous/

This is NOT a recent view....(I believe 2006) can you imagine THIS year's display?

Photo-fish wrote: 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.

True, after the POTUS declares he will no longer hold illegal immigrants in jail, construction workers from Mexico and Central America might build the Keystone pipeline instead of Americans.

BlazerBob wrote:

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

THE BOLDED....a rather inane statement,from my pov, when Gaia IS the environment and she SUSTAINS ALL OF US

BlazerBob wrote: 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

No, you did not say profits are a problem. Given the text of your post, though, it might appear to some to be biased against Buffet while endorsing the Kochs which, to me, would then be that "double standard" you mention above. As far as Steyer is concerned, how do you perceive him fitting into this discussion?

Your last statement is the very point I've been trying to make. Costs and benefits of any project must be weighed against their economic benefits vs their potentially negative impacts on the environment. While the pipeline, itself, would appear to be environmentally "benign" for all intents and purposes (and even that is open to discussion both positive and negative), it also needs to be considered from a perspective of how it indirectly contributes to what I consider to be an environmental "disaster" in extraction of tar sands oil. I just happen to lean more toward the entire thing having a more "negative" effect overall than a "positive" effect overall.

FredHayek wrote: Bennet voted for the pipeline and Udall didn't. Udall didn't have to worry about being reelected unlike Bennet, 60% of Americans support the pipeline.

70% in Canada support it too because they don't want it going through their own country via the Canadian Rockies.
I wonder why?

Another thing that bothers me about tar sands oil extraction and building the pipeline is the effects on First Nations People of Canada and Native American People of the United States. I don't claim to know anything about First Nations of Canada regarding sovereignty, but I do know Native Americans whose reservations are located within the United States are sovereign nations. While the proposed pipeline does not currently cross into or over actual reservation boundaries, it does, in fact, go through lands that have been "set aside" for Native Americans' use. These indigenous populations almost unanimously oppose building this pipeline through their lands. In Canada, the First Nations People are not only opposed to building the pipeline, but are also opposed to tar sands oil extraction. There is ample evidence of the harm to their lands environmentally speaking to give due pause to think about whether or not this is a good thing. I also understand there is already a Keystone pipeline in operation, and that the one we are discussing is a proposed "shorter" route than currently exists. The rationale for building a new, shorter route should also consider balancing the economics with the environment as far as I'm concerned.

The proposed pipeline really isn't a "shortcut", more like the hypotenuse of a triangle. The pipeline is designed to bisect an area of our Union in which there is a lot of production going on now that will continue for many years in the Bakken Formation. Currently that oil is shipped via truck and rail instead of via pipeline. Building the XL extension would allow that oil and gas to travel by pipeline instead of by truck and rail. This would also relieve the bottleneck in Oklahoma, allowing more oil to reach refineries located in Texas.

The whole reason this thing is hung up in Washington is because the extension has to cross the border between our Union and Canada. The president and Congress get to insert themselves into the mix over roughly 50'' of pipeline. That's it - 50' of pipeline allows the president and the party of Democrats to hold the entire project hostage for 6 years in order to secure funding for the next election from the environmental lobby. Unions are on the decline these days and so those members get to see firsthand just how important they are these days to the party they have supported for decades in the false belief that the party of Democrats cares about the common man.

How much do these Democrats care about the common man? Listen to Gruber's remarks - they tell you all you need to know . . .

Photo-fish wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Bennet voted for the pipeline and Udall didn't. Udall didn't have to worry about being reelected unlike Bennet, 60% of Americans support the pipeline.

70% in Canada support it too because they don't want it going through their own country via the Canadian Rockies.
I wonder why?

Great point. Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to route it through the Great Plains than a riskier, more challenging route through the awesome Canadian Rockies?

Yes. The Canadian oil will be much easier to clean up on the US plains when it spills.