HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 5 Reasons Why the Keyston...

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:22 AM

5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/21-0





1. Building the Keystone pipeline and opening up the Tar Sands will negatively impact national and local economies:
****
2. The same fossil fuel interests pushing the Keystone pipeline have been cutting, not creating, jobs:
****
3. Unemployment will rise:
****
4. Poor and working people will be disproportionately affected:
****
5. Building the sustainable economy, not the Keystone pipeline, will create far more jobs:

27 replies, 2195 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
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy (Original post)
ashling Feb 2013 OP
dkf Feb 2013 #1
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #5
dkf Feb 2013 #6
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #7
dkf Feb 2013 #11
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #15
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #9
dkf Feb 2013 #12
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #14
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #17
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #18
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #19
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #20
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #22
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #23
Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #24
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #25
oldhippie Feb 2013 #27
ashling Feb 2013 #10
think Feb 2013 #26
patrice Feb 2013 #2
mwrguy Feb 2013 #3
AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #4
jambo101 Feb 2013 #8
Festivito Feb 2013 #13
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #21
Berlum Feb 2013 #16

Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:11 AM

1. That makes no sense at all.

 

How does building the pipeline cost jobs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:44 AM

5. Instead of exporting a finished product

You are essentially exporting raw materials. Yet again outsourcing jobs to other countries. This is a huge deal in Canada - many people who live near the oil sands are now asking, "Hey, why aren't we refining this stuff here? Why is our government so anxious to ship out the bitumen instead of building refineries?" The same goes for the US as that pipeline goes straight to the gulf where the unrefined product is getting shipped overseas.

I'll give you 2 reasons why they are shipping it out raw:
labor costs
environmental issues

It's all about squeezing the last penny out of every drop of oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:05 AM

6. I highly doubt the OP likes the idea of building more refineries.

 

This is an anti-fossil fuels argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:20 AM

7. And I highly doubt your question was sincere.

Althought I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I was simply outlining why the large corps and gov'ts have been pushing this particular pipeline so hard and why it would cost jobs in the long run. I was answering your question. It's clear you weren't looking for an answer, but rather for a reaction - so I suppose I'm going to bow out as I've wasted enough time with you. Good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:44 AM

11. I absolutely believe the pipeline will create jobs.

 

I also don't think that not building the pipeline will prevent the tar sands from being developed, preventing the planet from experiencing global warming.

Lastly, it's not an either or where we build the pipeline or create finished products. We have the wherewithal to do both if so desired. Moreover, the backers of the pipeline aren't going to switch to manufacturing. That isn't their expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:21 AM

15. Well, I agree with you on one thing

I don't think not building the pipeline is going to stop the tar sands from being developed. Too many corps already in too deep. That bitumen will be transported, somehow.

I'm not talking about the backers of the pipeline switching - I am talking about the government of Canada getting involved since people are starting to realize we are selling raw materials to the US so they can secure their energy future while in return we get only a fraction of the market rate. Won't happen while Stephen Harper is in office of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:33 AM

9. Because Western Canada and the border states don't really need any more refined product,

There is no market, because relatively speaking nobody lives there. Why build refineries where there is no particular need for increased refined product and the finished product would still have to be transported to market?

While the refineries in the Texas region have ample capacity and access to a massive distribution network. This stuff has been refined in the US for decades. It is already being refined in Texas.

Where was everyone when the first Keystone pipeline was built? Nobody seemed to care then.

The Alliance Pipeline system is also expanding, where are the pot bangers on that one?

Hell, where are the pot bangers on the part of Keystone XL already approved and under construction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:49 AM

12. Yes, weren't they wondering how they would get what they needed there in the first place?

 

You are right that I can't imagine them having to build a refinery by shipping all that in and creating an infrastructure to support it all including moving even more people in.

Moreover refineries are not cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:16 AM

14. Look

I agree environmentalists dropped the ball on this one - pipelines have been built all over the place recently and not a peep until now.

However, I was talking about exporting a refined product overseas, never mentioned anything about Western Canada or the border states needing any more refined product. I disagree the refineries have ample capacity to refine enough product for an overseas market. Besides, my point was that labor and environmental costs were prohibitive so they are going to ship raw product out. Watch for those Texas refineries to close when that happens because they are 'cost prohibitive'. Mark my word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:19 PM

17. Do you have any idea what it would cost to replace the gulf coast refining capacity?

Hundreds of billions of dollars, they're going to be "cost effective" for decades if not centuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:47 PM

18. OH, well, certainly I'll take your word for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:56 PM

19. Just like i'm suposed to take your word for it?

The only two major refineries idled in recent years are both being reopened. Trainer and Marcus Hook - both in Pennsylvania. There is a tiny (>50k) Shell refinery in Louisiana that is probably closed permanently. The probability that the refineries that reside in the heart of North America's midstream system are going to be closed as long as anyone is using oil is lunacy. What makes a refinery inefficient today is pipeline capacity feeding it, not anything about the facilities themselves.

If the goal was export only, why build either Keystone pipeline? Why wouldn't TCPL just build a competitor to Northern Gateway and export out of a Canadian port on the west coast and save themselves a whole hell of a lot of hassle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:21 PM

20. Because it's more of a hassle to go over the Rockies.

That and trying to build through First Nations' land. Won't happen without a fight from them - especially with Idle No More being organized. Easier to go through oil-friendly US of A.

You are missing the big picture here - the refineries will stay open for North American refining in the short term, as oil is still the main source of energy. However at the moment they are exporting finished product. That won't happen for long, once they have a cheap way of shipping raw bitumen out at a fraction of the cost. The growing need is overseas. That is where the new refineries will be built. With time, as needs in North America drop (granted that could be quite some time away yet) and the refineries age, look to oil companies to shift their major target market overseas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:56 PM

22. There are already three pipeline systems crossing the Canadian Rockies

Do you have any idea how many First Nations have signed on to the Northern Gateway project?

The purpose of Keystone was to feed refineries in the upper-midwest. The purpose of Keystone XL is to feed refineries in Texas. The purpose of Northern Gateway is to export via Kitimat. Unique projects with obvious purposes to anyone who has ever seen a PADD map.

And why the hell would the refineries that produce something approaching a quarter of the refined product used in the United States be closed? What is the business case to close them? Nobody alive today is going to live to see a day when oil isn't the main source of energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:18 AM

23. Please tell me how many

because that's not what I've heard about it. They haven't 'signed up' for anything. What they have signed are protocol agreements. Basically laying the groundwork for possible negotiations, but in no way have those 'signed' First Nations communities said, "hey, come build your pipeline". And it's not just those communities whose land is going to have pipeline ON it...there are communities all along the west coast that vehemently oppose the pipeline because they don't want sensitive areas destroyed by overseas oil tankers leaking.

I don't know why you are lecturing me on the purpose of each pipeline. I know what the purpose of each one is for (according to oil companies, anyhow), TYVM. Although I think you are wrong about XL. The refineries in Texas have more than enough current raw materials to keep them going without XL...XL will be used for export of bitumen in order to bypass paying US taxes.

So...are you FOR this stuff? Or is this a game like the gun issue when you try to get me mired down in minutiae? I LIVE in the area that would benefit most from this pipeline (5 hours away from the tar sands) and I'm against it. The US won't even gain much benefit for the potential risks and costs. I'm surprised to see so much support for it here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:25 AM

24. The agreements that have been signed are for revenue sharing

Accepting money in exchange for accepting the pipeline alignment sure sounds like "hey, come build your pipeline" to me. More than half had signed on as of last summer and more have signed on in the interim. Hell, a lot of them already have pipelines of one sort or another traversing their land in the first place.

And what is your argument anyway? Here we have oil companies that want to transport oil, in roughly the same way it has been transported for more than a century from the region where it is found to a region that has in the neighborhood of three million barrels a day of refining capacity and you want to fact check them on this?

Is it essential to the viability of the refining industry on the Gulf Coast? Of course not. But it is the most viable alternative for all stakeholders on both sides of the border period.

I don't think I have been obtuse about this, I 100% support Keystone XL and am confident the President will approve the balance of the project.

And absolutely we benefit from this, we are integrating the Alberta Oil Sands into the heart of the American hydrocarbons industry. We need the oil. Alberta needs more pipeline capacity to sell us oil. The only losers are the people who fantasize about peak oil and watching decadent suburban car owners suffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:34 AM

25. The bands beg to differ

a large portion of them insist those are not revenue sharing deals. And a few have decided to go to court to stop deals, especially after new band elections.

And with that I'm done...since you are clearly on the pro oil side, which is also the side republicans and pro-corp dems take. I have no further interest in discussing this. 'Beneficial' as it may be to industry and provincial, state and federal coffers, it's a continued disaster for the environment. Long past time to get serious about alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:05 AM

27. "Hey, why aren't we refining this stuff here? ...

 

"Hey, why aren't we refining this stuff here? Why is our government so anxious to ship out the bitumen instead of building refineries?"

You tried to build a refinery lately?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:41 AM

10. Obviously haven't read the article

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:44 AM

26. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:16 AM

2. Complete insanity. I hate it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:23 AM

3. Monkey wrench

is a tool that may be applied to a pipeline, or so I'm told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:35 AM

4. You don't quite need to be worried about a supposed total climate "apocalypse" to realize.....

Just what a potentially collosal failure this Keystone project could be if it still goes through, whether now of later. I'm not one of those people who believe that it's "game over" for the climate or whatever(after all, Jim Hansen's known for hyperbole, though nobody can quite rival James Lovelock in that regard), but there are plenty of concerns that would make stopping this thing very much worthwhile. And given Kerry's most recent speech on the matter, there is some reason to be hopeful(keep your fingers crossed, though, as strange things do happen.....)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:23 AM

8. A pipeline is just a short term employment generator

Once the construction of it is over its operation becomes just another switch in a control room somewhere.
Building another pipeline is a bandaid solution at best for Americas oil needs as it will take only a few years before more piplines will be needed to satiate Americas ever increasing addiction for more oil.
Heres a map of current gas and oil pipelines across the USA.
[link:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy9vPzrbYYY/UChKe2JkplI/AAAAAAAAElQ/SGlE1vIaf94/s1600/nnn+oil++etc_+all_pipe.jpg|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:31 AM

13. He doesn't mention that as tar sand, it does not get taxed.

As refined, or as a little more refined, it would be taxed as it flowed.

XL hopes to drain Canada's resource and send it to another country for processing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:23 PM

21. Yep. Good point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:25 AM

16. That is one butt ugly pipeline tormenting the face of the Mother Earth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread