The Definitive pro Keystone Pipeline argument, even for Global Warmers (how much, construction)

[JimBaker488]

There is no question that oil from the tar sands will increase greenhouse gases. But by how much? According to a study by IHS Cera, a leading energy research firm, the oil from the tar sands emits only 6 percent more greenhouse gases than other, lighter forms of oil. (Environmental groups have tried to poke holes in the study, but even they don’t come up with the kind of increase that would doom the planet.)
*************************
The second argument is that the tar sands oil won’t help the United States because it is all headed for export. This is perhaps the silliest argument of all. Right now, most of the big refineries on the Gulf Coast export around 20 percent of their refined product. Why? Because every barrel of crude oil is converted partly to diesel and partly to gasoline — and the rest of the world is far more reliant on diesel fuel than we are. The gasoline remains in the United States. Keystone wouldn’t change that equation one bit. Normally, one wouldn’t have to point out that exporting high-value products is good for the country. But, of course, improving our trade balance is irrelevant when you’re facing the apocalypse.
*************************
But let’s be honest. It’s not going to change anyone’s behavior. If Keystone is ultimately blocked, the far more likely result is that everyone who opposed it will get to feel good about themselves while still commuting to work, alone, in their S.U.V.’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/op...ne-take-2.html
*******************************

[warptman]

Where in Alaska is Keystone?

[LadyAuke]

I think you may need to do some research on the meaning of the word "definitive."

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by LadyAuke

I think you may need to do some research on the meaning of the word "definitive."

For me the "The Politics of Keystone, Take 2" title even understates how defining and compelling the article is, in part because it's written for and by a journalist employed by the the most prominent daily liberal publication in the world. And an even more appropriate title for the article might be "The Politics and Economics of Keystone, Take 2".
If you disagree please feel free to elaborate if you so choose ?

[gobrien]

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Keystone pipeline have nothing in common. Our pipeline has had many leaks but at least our fuel isn't as dirty. What is the point in posting this in the Alaska forum? Most of us are pro-oil. Why wouldn't we be?

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by gobrien

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Keystone pipeline have nothing in common. Our pipeline has had many leaks but at least our fuel isn't as dirty. What is the point in posting this in the Alaska forum? Most of us are pro-oil. Why wouldn't we be?

Honestly ? You really don't think there's a link between the 2 ? I can think of several not the least of which is that exactly the same powerful factions who oppose Keystone are also against expanded Oil & Gas E&P in different areas of Alaska to include ANWR.
Oh BTW, when I said this writers argument could also make sense to global warmers, I was just suggesting that I thought the piece was so effective that that crowd might even be able to understand it. I mean I certainly do realize most Alaskans are pro-oil.

[bortstc37]

The trouble with tar sands is not so much the oil itself, it is that getting it is very inefficient. It takes a lot more energy to produce a barrel of oil from tar sands than it does from nearly any other method (and that isn't to mention the water it requires).
It is only economically viable when the price of oil is over a certain point.
The Energy Return of Tar Sands

[starlite9]

Well I would rather send money to Canada for oil, than sending it to the sandbox to people that want to kill us.

You are clearly of the mindset of no oil production period, same mindset of those that tried to stop the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipline! All the chants proved to be false after thirty+ years and billions of barrels of oil through it.

Global Warming has been proven to be a natural cycle, but still people are chanting it was man made even with China putting almost a new coal fired power plant online a week! None of which have even a fraction of the stack scrubbers the US mandates on ours. Yet the world keeps getting colder.

[bortstc37]

Well, obviously it'll cost a lot more to the consumer if the companies have much higher costs. I would also rather support Canada, but I doubt many people would be willing to pay as much for gas from tar sands than they would for gas that came a lot easier. Would anyone support it at $10 per gallon?

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by bortstc37

Well, obviously it'll cost a lot more to the consumer if the companies have much higher costs. I would also rather support Canada, but I doubt many people would be willing to pay as much for gas from tar sands than they would for gas that came a lot easier. Would anyone support it at $10 per gallon?

Well since our current government is against drilling on our own turf, we will pay what we have to until the public wakes up and throws out the bums in Washinton and has a major pushback from the radical enviormentalist that are so narrow in their view that don't care about anything but their own agendas.