U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-03-2011, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
35,978 posts, read 36,054,739 times
Reputation: 55662

Advertisements

"The Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the United States at the same time the Chinese are investing in a pipeline that could send that oil to China. The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week passed a bill requiring President Barack Obama to speed up a decision on approving the pipeline. "Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Newsmax in an interview last week that the pipeline project could create 100,000 jobs and said: “Why is it that we’re not working with Canada, which will be producing more than 3 or 4 million barrels a day from oil sand, and we’ve stalled on the application to build a pipeline?"

Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

Why President Obama? Why?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2011, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,811 posts, read 3,872,458 times
Reputation: 3975
Simple: Alberta is smart. China holds the majority of our debt and theirs. Why upset your banker?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 05:50 PM
 
4,406 posts, read 5,705,585 times
Reputation: 2899
The oil sand extraction process is the most environmentally destructive out there. While I can't explain the delay, there must be extenuating circumstances. Not every 'solution' is this easy. 100K jobs is not going to turn us around, nor are pipelines from Canada. We need to develop safer alternatives which are out there. Now, if the energy industry didn't conceal those alternatives to maintain its profits at the expense of everything else.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 06:08 PM
 
25,058 posts, read 24,915,112 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
The oil sand extraction process is the most environmentally destructive out there. While I can't explain the delay, there must be extenuating circumstances. Not every 'solution' is this easy. 100K jobs is not going to turn us around, nor are pipelines from Canada. We need to develop safer alternatives which are out there. Now, if the energy industry didn't conceal those alternatives to maintain its profits at the expense of everything else.
Maybe if environmentally toxic and inefficient solar panels and batteries were at least 50% more efficient today and far cheaper.......
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:19 PM
 
41,823 posts, read 45,018,613 times
Reputation: 17746
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
Now, if the energy industry didn't conceal those alternatives to maintain its profits at the expense of everything else.
Do you see the huge contradiction in your comment? The suggestion they are concealing what would a be an economic bonanza to maintain profits is ridiculous.

Let's look at it from another perspective, if they are concealing something that means they haven't patented it leaving the door open for someone else to patent it and reap all the benefits from it. Certainly makes sense.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,296,578 times
Reputation: 8655
The article doesn't mention how soon it will have to be approved, I'm curious as to how long we have to wait, or if its simply politics between us and Canada. I doubt they'd be using a pipeline to China, that would mean running a pipeline all the way across the Pacific, which is really not going to happen I'm afraid.

I do think that the President should approve it though, so I'll write a letter encouraging him to do so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:45 PM
 
41,823 posts, read 45,018,613 times
Reputation: 17746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I doubt they'd be using a pipeline to China, that would mean running a pipeline all the way across the Pacific, which is really not going to happen I'm afraid.
It would terminate at the Pacific ocean where it would shipped from.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,296,578 times
Reputation: 8655
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
It would terminate at the Pacific ocean where it would shipped from.
Which would cost more money in shipping costs.

As I said, I think its just political posturing. Could be wrong, but this normal political dancing thats done. President Obama doesn't want to upset his environmentally motivated base, and to make sure that doesn't happen, he's got to drag his heals a bit.

Besides, oil is a world wide commodity. If China gets oil from Canada, it would simply lower prices everywhere else. Price isn't determined by who you buy your oil from, it is determined by the world market for it.

The article says that if this is pumped into the United States, with the lower emissions and higher fuel economy standards that have been put into place, that no middle eastern oil would be needed. That could be true, but someone is going to buy their oil, because it makes it cheaper for everyone to use that oil.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:58 PM
 
41,823 posts, read 45,018,613 times
Reputation: 17746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Which would cost more money in shipping costs.
Yes but it's done all the time, the Chinese have something like 12% of the worlds known reserves of coal yet they are buying coal from us. They need to feed their economy, it's really their achilles heal.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 09:13 PM
 
26,684 posts, read 26,345,288 times
Reputation: 7930
Oh give it a rest.

If Obama cured cancer, some of you would say he didn't cure it the right way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top