Skip to main content

View Diary: Pres. Obama's Big Oil host has history of war profiteering, discrimination (Updated/Action) (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Only about 1/4 to 1/2 of (0+ / 0-)

    the tarsands oil will be refined in TX even if the Keystone pipeline is built.

    Right now, it's starting to be sent by rail to NY, DE, and LA.  Economically, the only thing holding this back is the fears of the railroads that pipelines will be built, thus rendering their investments superfluous.   If you think about it, killing keystone will put this fear to rest and they'll go whole hog into transporting crude oil (as they've shown they can do on a large scale wrt the Bakken oil - where a lack of pipeline capacity HAS NOT deterred development).  

    And, as the Alaskan crude dwindles, and convential oil from Alberta runs out, an increasing amount of tarsands oil will be sent via the existing Kinder Morgan Pipeline to Seattle area refineries.

    Finally, the Canadians are also interested in converting NG pipelines that go to their eastern regions (but are no longer needed because of massive fracking in PA, etc) to transport tarsands oil east.

    Having said all of that - should the Keystone pipeline be built - no, absolutely not, it's complete lunacy.

    However, we should stop deluding ourselves that that action will have any impact on global climate change - it won't.

    •  Blocking the Keystone pipeline, slows down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat

      Tar Sands extraction. The process is too expensive to continue on a massive scale without having a port for their landlocked dilbit.

      Do not take my word, look up oil as an investment and see where they list pipeline blockades and environmentalists as an investment risk.

      Slowing down the extraction of the worst industrial site in the world has an impact on climate change. Bill McKibben and Jim Hansen stand by this and I stand with them.

      END OF STORY

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You need to read more broadly (0+ / 0-)

        I frankly don't know what to say other than that.

        I realize it's nice to have heroes that you wish to believe unconditionally, but when the evidence contradicts what they are telling you, maybe it's time to reconsider?

        •  I personally have no trust at all in Bill McKibben (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          He is all part of a scheme to have cap and trade or some type of carbon tax, and those costs will be arranged so the 99% pay them, not those at the top.

          And people like him are paid to make the poorest of the poor feel they are saving the earth by turning off their lights an hour early each day. Meanwhile, the military is frittering away our resources, with its modernization, and its endless wars. Then there are those "non-existent" chem trailers up in our skies, 24/7, who are helping Monsanto see to it that the conventional crops are dying, while the Monsanto GM stuff will withstand (perhaps) the constant chemtrail mix of barium, strontium, and excess jet fuel dispersing down over the land. (Cost for each single county in the USA for the chemtrail planes that don't exist is ten billion per county per year!)

          Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

          by Truedelphi on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 01:40:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Reconsider and listen to you protecting BIG OIL? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat

          end of story

          •  I challenge you to find any post (0+ / 0-)

            where I have protected Big Oil.

            Because there are none.

            Quite the contary, I have a long and consistent record of being totally agains fossil fuels of all kind.  In fact, I have been a long time proponent of a stiff carbon tax to put them out of business (unlike all the pipeline fluff that is promoted here at DailyKos).

            My big issue is that if the Tarsands were COMPLETELY shut down - that's about 1% (or when fully developed maybe up to 2%) of global emissions.  IOW, basically nothing when there is enough slack in global supply to instanteously increase usage by 5 or 6% (like what happened in 2011 when Japan shut down their nukes (plus economic recovery in other parts of Asia kicked in)).

            OTOH, US emisions HAVE been dropping lately even in the face of global surplus supply - wouldn't it make sense to figure out how/why and build on what's working rather than chasing unicorns over the rainbow?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site