Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
stamps

Keystone Pipeline XL passes first hurdle

Recommended Posts

Like Waldo pointed out a few pages earlier, legally, it’s easier in North America to expand on current refineries then it is to build new ones….

nice... I thought I pointed out that your boogeyman, 'EPA regulation', didn't 'appear' to dissuade BigOil from moving forward with refinery upgrades/expansion in the U.S. (to the effective equivalent of 23 new refineries) ... and that BigOil's eye on it's own bottom-line was the dominant factor in why no 'new' refineries had been built in the U.S.. We never did get into the regulatory distinctions that might exist, if any, in terms of 'new' versus 'upgrades/expansion to existing'..... you could take us there..........

What do you feel, since the oil is going to go to Asia anyways...

well, this is good... now perhaps you can finally offer comment on how XL pipeline proponents have inappropriately championed the extension in terms of targeting domestic capacity needs... and, no, it's not being done in terms of referencing impacts on world pricing. Seems no one wanted to bite on that when I kept harping on it earlier...

If you want to be successful in your aims for creating a cleaner Earth, figure out how to do it in such a way as it becomes a major money making venture that is viable………You’ll have energy companies, investors, lobbyists, politicians and lawyers banging at your door in no time.

In other words, don’t “fight the system”, create a new system that’s not built on fantasy and idealism, but MONEY.

If you build it, they will come

perhaps, given your perspective, you can't see the... forest for the trees. That ever increasing move to sustainable is, at the same time, being championed... and hampered... by industry's vested, as you say, MONEY interests. Quite obviously, the timeline of shifting is the focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so it's selective ethics then, hey? Within his book "Ethical Oil", Levant trumped up his own personal brand of outrage over the ethics of importing Saudi Oil, given the human rights violations he speaks to. But, as you state, business ethics in selling to a suggested repressive country is a whole different matter. Apparently.
You don't see the difference between selling oil to an unethical country and buying it from them? Like maybe the proceeds from one transaction are used to fund terrorism while the other transaction creates economic growth and jobs which improve the quality of life of a billion people? Nope, no differences there.

Please feel free to explain to me your moral dilemma with selling oil to China to help their economy continue to grow and prosper. I would especially love to hear you compare it to funding terrorism by buying Saudi oil.

I most certainly have no problem highlighting the hypocrisy with Levant/Velshi (and their fervent admirers), selectively applying ethics... based on perceived repression. I equally have no problem in highlighting your own selective application of how monies may be applied - more pointedly, I am keen to hear more from you, particularly in terms of Saudi Oil proceeds funding terrorism..... wait, where's that pic I threw up earlier... where is it... where is it... ah, found it:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

nice... I thought I pointed out that your boogeyman, 'EPA regulation', didn't 'appear' to dissuade BigOil from moving forward with refinery upgrades/expansion in the U.S. (to the effective equivalent of 23 new refineries) ... and that BigOil's eye on it's own bottom-line was the dominant factor in why no 'new' refineries had been built in the U.S.. We never did get into the regulatory distinctions that might exist, if any, in terms of 'new' versus 'upgrades/expansion to existing'..... you could take us there..........

You still want me to say that “Bigoil” is not building new refineries for some mythical reason? Not going to happen buddy, I will state that building them in today’s climate of environmental regulations, excessive lawsuits and counter lawsuits makes them less attractive financially………But, there still is a market, why else would those two companies we mentioned be seeking to build them, and why are news ones being built within Canada in the last few years? Wouldn’t these investments “hurt” BigOil’s bottom line in your view?

well, this is good... now perhaps you can finally offer comment on how XL pipeline proponents have inappropriately championed the extension in terms of targeting domestic capacity needs... and, no, it's not being done in terms of referencing impacts on world pricing. Seems no one wanted to bite on that when I kept harping on it earlier...

I'll do no such thing, the oil will go where there's a market for it.......Oil from the Trans Mountain, currently feeds mostly the coastal BC and Washington state markets......with the expansion, it's planned to serve these, as well as the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and the Californian markets………

perhaps, given your perspective, you can't see the... forest for the trees. That ever increasing move to sustainable is, at the same time, being championed... and hampered... by industry's vested, as you say, MONEY interests. Quite obviously, the timeline of shifting is the focus.

Do you have an example of “BigOil” hampering a viable, sustainable energy source? I have an example of just opposite:

T. Boone Pickens

He has brought his solution — switching the nation's 18-wheeler truck segment to natural gas fuels, of which the United States has an abundance of supply — to the forefront of American debate and legislative action.

Although tight credit markets and transmission line issues have prompted Pickens to cancel 2007-announced plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, Pickens remains fully committed to wind energy and to developing wind projects in the United States and, perhaps, Canada. His Mesa Power Group continues to pursue smaller projects throughout the United States and Canada through the American Wind Alliance, a cooperative formed with General Electric. For "his vision and leadership in moving the wind industry forward, " the American Wind Energy Association named Pickens its 2009 Industry Person of the Year.

Quite obviously, that timeline is not here yet.........offer some suggestions instead of criticisms…….like the old saying goes, when you point a finger there’s three more pointing back at you………Do you have a viable plan to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I most certainly have no problem highlighting the hypocrisy with Levant/Velshi (and their fervent admirers), selectively applying ethics... based on perceived repression. I equally have no problem in highlighting your own selective application of how monies may be applied - more pointedly, I am keen to hear more from you, particularly in terms of Saudi Oil proceeds funding terrorism..... wait, where's that pic I threw up earlier... where is it... where is it... ah, found it:

I'm not sure you've put much thought into the flow of funds in these cases.

Think of it this way:

You know I'm a murderer and I want to buy a gun to go on a killing spree.

I offer to sell you my car. The funds from the sale may be used to buy a gun and go on that killing spree.

Alternatively, you offer to sell me a car. It's very unlikely that I intend to use the car to shoot people.

You really can't see a moral difference in these cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please feel free to explain to me your moral dilemma with selling oil to China to help their economy continue to grow and prosper. I would especially love to hear you compare it to funding terrorism by buying Saudi oil.
There is no difference in either case. Oil is a fungible commodity that trades on world exchanges. If Canada does not sell oil to China Indonesia will. If the U.S. doesn't buy Saudi oil France will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi Klein Debunks Ethical Oil at Tar Sands Action

AN INVITATION: Join the Ottawa sit-in on September 26

"There comes a time…"

There comes a time when you need to take a stand. When sending letters and signing petitions isn't enough. When together we must say, "enough is enough — not on our watch.

Edited by CitizenX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi Klein Debunks Ethical Oil at Tar Sands Action

"There comes a time…"

There comes a time when you need to take a stand. When sending letters and signing petitions isn't enough. When together we must say, "enough is enough — not on our watch.

Man, could Penn and Teller have a ball with this lady! I just wasted 10 minutes and 55 seconds watching this clip, waiting for her to actually factually debunk "Ethical Oil". I never heard any such thing from this woman!

What I did hear is her paint "tar sands oil" as dirty, implying that it is some HUGE percentage of the pollution being generated on the planet. In reality, it is only a percent or two. Compared to China, India and Russia, it is truly "mice nuts".

She dragged out examples like rising sea levels swamping the island of Tuvulu, which has been totally debunked for some years now.

She makes the claim that the vast majority of Canadians care about climate change, with no cites, of course. Even if it were true, who says they agree with HER as to the severity of the issue, what methods we should pursue to mitigate the problem and HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

She castigates Canadian governments for not living up to the Kyoto commitments. Thank God we didn't! I read the damn thing from start to finish. Almost nothing on real science and almost totally about giving money to the Third World, with no auditing to make sure it doesn't get spent on bullets and bombs for dictators.

She drags out Bush as some kind of demon, cites fossil fuels as "a violent attack on the Earth" and makes claims that the Keystone/XL pipeline will devastate the environment so badly it sounds like a nuclear holocause! She blows off the idea of the pipeline delivering jobs as simple capitalistic greed!

Not to mention that ethical oil is also the cause of dramatically increased numbers of hurricanes and natural disasters.

Finally, she makes the claim that we have perfect alternatives right now that could provide 10's of millions of jobs. Organized labour jobs, of course!

If this is what you call debunking, then I'm Sheila Copps! This is a harangue, nothing more. It is a sermon sung to the choir, appealing to the lowbrow and simple.

I'll bet an entire case of beer that this lady is another example of someone who dropped hard sciences and maths very, very early in her education! She argues virtually entirely from emotion and faith, with almost no sense of cause and effect.

Most telling of all, the issue is "ethical oil". This term springs from a comparison of oil produced from countries that have severe moral failings by our lights. It is a comparison to oil sourced from countries that kill gays, make women walk around with bags over their heads, often refusing them any schooling or allowing them to drive a car.

She never said a single word about those countries. In fact, she never made any ethical comparisons between sources at all! She simply defined ethical as whether or not the oilsands were a "clean" energy source, which by her standards they are not.

What a waste of my time! Thanks for nothing! I'll know better next time.

Edited by Wild Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Man, could Penn and Teller have a ball with this lady! I just wasted 10 minutes and 55 seconds watching this clip, waiting for her to actually factually debunk "Ethical Oil". I never heard any such thing from this woman!

What I did hear is her paint "tar sands oil" as dirty, implying that it is some HUGE percentage of the pollution being generated on the planet. In reality, it is only a percent or two. Compared to China, India and Russia, it is truly "mice nuts".

She dragged out examples like rising sea levels swamping the island of Tuvulu, which has been totally debunked for some years now.

She makes the claim that the vast majority of Canadians care about climate change, with no cites, of course. Even if it were true, who says they agree with HER as to the severity of the issue, what methods we should pursue to mitigate the problem and HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

She castigates Canadian governments for not living up to the Kyoto commitments. Thank God we didn't! I read the damn thing from start to finish. Almost nothing on real science and almost totally about giving money to the Third World, with no auditing to make sure it doesn't get spent on bullets and bombs for dictators.

She drags out Bush as some kind of demon, cites fossil fuels as "a violent attack on the Earth" and makes claims that the Keystone/XL pipeline will devastate the environment so badly it sounds like a nuclear holocause! She blows off the idea of the pipeline delivering jobs as simple capitalistic greed!

Not to mention that ethical oil is also the cause of dramatically increased numbers of hurricanes and natural disasters.

Finally, she makes the claim that we have perfect alternatives right now that could provide 10's of millions of jobs. Organized labour jobs, of course!

If this is what you call debunking, then I'm Sheila Copps! This is a harangue, nothing more. It is a sermon sung to the choir, appealing to the lowbrow and simple.

I'll bet an entire case of beer that this lady is another example of someone who dropped hard sciences and maths very, very early in her education! She argues virtually entirely from emotion and faith, with almost no sense of cause and effect.

Most telling of all, the issue is "ethical oil". This term springs from a comparison of oil produced from countries that have severe moral failings by our lights. It is a comparison to oil sourced from countries that kill gays, make women walk around with bags over their heads, often refusing them any schooling or allowing them to drive a car.

She never said a single word about those countries. In fact, she never made any ethical comparisons between sources at all! She simply defined ethical as whether or not the oilsands were a "clean" energy source, which by her standards they are not.

What a waste of my time! Thanks for nothing! I'll know better next time.

I'm still waiting to hear a viable alternative by those opposed to the pipelines and Tar Sands.........not holding my breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting to hear a viable alternative by those opposed to the pipelines and Tar Sands.........not holding my breath

Why Derek, don't you know the solution to electric cars is to put a small wind turbine on the roof of the car, that will charge the battery as the car is driven?

Of course you realize, there are posters here on this very board that read my last paragraph and the fallacy of it went completely over their head!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Why Derek, don't you know the solution to electric cars is to put a small wind turbine on the roof of the car, that will charge the battery as the car is driven?

Of course you realize, there are posters here on this very board that read my last paragraph and the fallacy of it went completely over their head!

You know that’s exactly it, if they had a viable solution that worked, we’d either be using it or developing it……And making money off it

Edited by Derek L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that’s exactly it, if they had a viable solution that worked, we’d either be using it or developing it……And making money off it

If people were making money off of it they'd find something to complain about... it's altering our wind or something.

"See wind patterns are different than they were 20 million years ago... are you a wind pattern change denier?!?! What about that horrible hurricane? See mother nature is angry!!! It's time to curb our excessive wind usage before mother nature purges us all!"

Edited by CPCFTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so it's selective ethics then, hey? Within his book "Ethical Oil", Levant trumped up his own personal brand of outrage over the ethics of importing Saudi Oil, given the human rights violations he speaks to. But, as you state, business ethics in selling to a suggested repressive country is a whole different matter. Apparently.
You don't see the difference between selling oil to an unethical country and buying it from them? Like maybe the proceeds from one transaction are used to fund terrorism while the other transaction creates economic growth and jobs which improve the quality of life of a billion people? Nope, no differences there.

Please feel free to explain to me your moral dilemma with selling oil to China to help their economy continue to grow and prosper. I would especially love to hear you compare it to funding terrorism by buying Saudi oil.

I most certainly have no problem highlighting the hypocrisy with Levant/Velshi (and their fervent admirers), selectively applying ethics... based on perceived repression. I equally have no problem in highlighting your own selective application of how monies may be applied - more pointedly, I am keen to hear more from you, particularly in terms of Saudi Oil proceeds funding terrorism..... wait, where's that pic I threw up earlier... where is it... where is it... ah, found it:

I'm not sure you've put much thought into the flow of funds in these cases.

Think of it this way:

You know I'm a murderer and I want to buy a gun to go on a killing spree.

I offer to sell you my car. The funds from the sale may be used to buy a gun and go on that killing spree.

Alternatively, you offer to sell me a car. It's very unlikely that I intend to use the car to shoot people.

You really can't see a moral difference in these cases?

aside from this nonsensical Levant/Velshi re-branding exercise, the ethical oil premise, one based upon comparing tarsands oil to the (presumed) repressive action/policy of alternate country sources, is a false/hypocritical premise that doesn't truly address actual ethics behind tarsands development itself. Certainly, feel free to structure whatever mickey-mouse and unrealistic comparative fund flow dynamic you feel rationalizes your particular view/position on the trumped up Levant/Velshi nonsense... but don't presume to tout it as anything akin to actual ethical/moral considerations relative to the (presumed) repressive action/policy of sellers vs. buyers of oil. In any case, it appears the Levant/Velshi shell-game, as they intended, has you looking away from the real ethical considerations associated with tarsands development. Levant shouts, "look... squirrel"!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...