Just say ‘no’ to Keystone
By Alwyn Moss
If the 95 percent or so of respected American scientists are even close to right, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry would be wise to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
The lame justifications being used to suggest that approving the pipeline would not cause harm to the planetary climate and would be a boon to the U.S. economy can be easily countered.
Moss lives in Blacksburg.
March 17, 2013 - 7:36 AM
The liberal argument has no merit whatsoever…as usual. Build the pipeline, create a robust economy and let the Saudi`s, etc., sell thier oil elsewhere. If the XL will be such a problem for the planet, won`t it also be a problem for the planet if Canada sells it to China ? Reality….Not always the smoothest ride, but a ride nonetheless.
Awood, ALL oil is sold on the open commodities market. Ours, Saudi Arabia’s, Iraq’s, Only those nations that have privatized their oil fields can “keep” their oil for their own consumption. The second Keystone pipeline will still take oil from Canada to the world market. Canada may well sell that crude to China, or any other bidder willing to pay the price and there will be NOTHING we can do about that.
That YOU believe the “liberal argument has no merit whatsoever” is based on your partisan blinders, not fact.
#2 Mrs. Saunders…..which is it? “ALL oil is sold on the open commodities market.” Or, “Canada may well sell that crude to China, or any other bidder willing to pay the price and there will ne NOTHING we can do about that.”
(Maybe it has something to do with “constant” demand).
Actually it has everything to do with that constant demand, the oil will be sold to the highest bidder regardless of where it is generated, harvested or piped to. Someone is always wanting it.
There was no discrepancy in my point, but you never let an opportunity to jab pass you by.
Jim, I don’t think there is a contradiction in what Sandi wrote, if we grant that Canada sells on the open market and China buys on the open market (though I’m not sure I agree that oil is sold on the open market, given the monopolistic tendencies of cartels and collusion).
.
And demand CAN be constant, though the volume of that demand may not be…I think you two were talking past each other there.
Point taken on the “cartels and collusion”.
#5 & #4 Demand may be continual or continuos but it’s not constant. Canada cannot sell directly to China & others while also putting “ALL” supply on the “open commodities market”.
There are real, not just semantical, differences in these concepts, and, to mis-use such while making a therefore mis-placed political point…..in the guise of economic and market perspective/policy needs to be pointed out.
The Keystone pipeline, from Canada to refineries in the U.S. is not being built for this same oil to go on the “open commodities market”.
Yes, all oil bought or sold affects such general futures markets, as does all supply and demand fluctuations.
Should we transport our energy needs, by tanker, while creating jobs & wealth elsewhere? Or, should we, to the greatest practical extent, produce our own & import by pipeline from a friend & neighbor, and direct trading partner?
Is there less environmental concern in drilling in Saudai Arabia & Venezuala & shipping by 1400 foot tankers, than transporting by pipeline from Canada?
Saudi
I got news for Alwyn Moss. That “dirty” oil will not stay in the ground in Canada.
Now we can all speak the same language… thanks Jim.
“95 percent or so of respected American scientists”?
.
First, is there a source for that number? Any way to quantify “respected” and “scientist”?
.
Second, a reminder that consensus does not equate to accuracy. There was a time when 95 percent or so of respected world scientists thought the earth was flat.
When “Demand may be continual or continuos” it can be said to be: continually occurring or recurring : regular
I already proved the word “constant” has more than one connotation and why you cannot let that go is telling.
I repeat that ALL oil goes on the world market (of cartels, speculators and collusion). That Canada can sell “directly to China & others” while pumping their crude through the pipeline in the US is going to be proof of that. That the oil extracted here and off our coasts is sold to the highest bidder is as well. There is no claim we can make on any oil pumped on our soil, not by right and not by law, only by paying the highest price to get it.
The “differences” you want to quibble and argue over do not matter and in this discussion at least, are just your attempt to bully the conversation.
Where is it exactly you believe the crude from Keystone will go and be used?
YOU claim it will create “jobs and wealth”, but what if it only creates environmental disaster? Will you accept the blame for that?
We have mainly transported crude oil by tanker for a very long time. We also have as much of a refinery problem as crude oil needed. Where is the proof we can even refine the Keystone crude?
“Is there less environmental concern in drilling in Saudai Arabia & Venezuala & shipping by 1400 foot tankers, than transporting by pipeline from Canada?” Quite possibly there is.
#12 Thank you.