HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The future of Keystone XL

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 03:43 PM

The future of Keystone XL

Does anyone else get a bad feeling that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will become a conceded bargaining chip in a 'Fiscal cliff' grand bargain?

I hope to hell I'm wrong, but there is a lot of corporate pressure to approve it, as well as lobbying backed by Canada's shitty Conservative party.

11 replies, 656 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 03:50 PM

1. How about Keystone XL

with appropriate high bonds for pollution in trade for two to three aircraft carrier groups (why would we need to monitor the middle east anymore for example). Also all U.S. production of crude stays in the U.S. Our oil may be more expensive than the Middle Eastern oil, but at least we won't have to pay for the security to get it here (or actually to the rest of the world). From a carbon standpoint I got to suspect the "cheap" Middle Eastern oil may no longer be that cheap after we pull out.

The Canadians do have an alternative with this oil - piping it to the West Coast for shipment to the Far East.

This proposal should be part of a larger proposal to scale back our spending as the world's policeman. Out of Germany, the Middle East, Korea, and Japan I say.

Our first goal should be securing the resources for sustainable development in the Western Hemisphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:04 PM

2. I guess it depends on what you consider 'sustainable'


Granted, 2-3 aircraft carrier groups produce a mighty carbon footprint, but nothing comparative to the Eco-disaster of developing the tar sands, and thats assuming that the pipeline never leaks and fouls everything around it, along its route.

The provincial government in BC can't get public approval to build a pipeline to the coast, and the presumptive incoming NDP government has said no way in hell. So it either goes south, or stays under-developed.

I find it hard to believe that any of it would stay in North America once its refined too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

3. If it springs a leak it will stay in North America.

It has been demonstrated in Michigan that they can't get rid of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

4. I was thinking the resulting instability

would reduce Middle Eastern production of oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:13 PM

5. The fix is in: XL is going to happen. People are having their ranches bulldozed in Texas at present.

 

I think I am correct, but hope I am wrong, but crude from Alaska is exported and it's planned that the refined sludge from the Canadian tar sands will also be exported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:31 PM

6. I think you are correct on both counts.

I'm pretty sure that the pipe itself has already been manufactured, and is being stockpiled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:36 PM

7. I would rather concede that than a lot of other things

At least it will provide jobs, and I would rather see Obama give in on that than on raising taxes on the rich or cutting services.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:43 PM

8. It would help if certain Democrats weren't pushing its implementation.

Keystone Pipeline: Bill Clinton Puts In Good Word, But Wife To Decide Fate
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/29/keystone-pipeline-bill-clinton_n_1311714.html

Bill Clinton on Keystone XL pipeline: 'Embrace' it
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html#ixzz2Bx8CEOyc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:46 PM

9. Follow the tar sands blockade on Twitter for news of actions against the Keystone XL pipeline.

 

https://twitter.com/KXLBlockade


Tar Sands Blockade ‏@KXLBlockade

We already have word of #solidarity actions in 15 cities across the country. Join us to say #NoKXL
http://tarsandsblockade.org/Nov19



Tar Sands Blockade ‏@KXLBlockade

Sign up now! Here is the official facebook event for our Nov 19th mass action. We hope to see a lot of you soon...
http://fb.me/2fKON9W17

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:57 PM

10. It just seems like Keystone is coming anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 05:03 PM

11. It really has never been a question.

The Ogallala Aquifer was only a stumbling block. The pipeline will be rerouted, but has already been approved by the Nebraska legislature (before the new route has been established). Obama said that Keystone was welcome to reapply for approval when he declined permission the first time. It was a done deal even before OWS got kicked off the Capitol Mall.

Texas is already building the southern route. I had no delusions about it, even as I cast my ballot. I think the only deluded folks are the ones that voted for Romney. But that goes without saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread