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.
More than 52 percent of "oilsands production" is owned by American shareholders, which is more than twice the level of Canadian ownership, she added. Another 5.2 percent of production is owned by Chinese state-owned companies, according to the report.
Maybe a thousand temporary jobs to dig for and build the pipeline. I think those workers could serve the US better by repairing and building our roads, bridges, and rails.
Get real, those jobs are not readily available if at all.
I think the operative word here is 'temporary'. How long is temporary in this case? The pipeline has been in production for at least a decade. Is temporary another five years? Or ten years? Everything is always relative to the situation.
If memory serves, President Obama signed a stimulus package, in 2009, that was supposed to provide "shovel-ready" jobs to fix roads and bridges. I don't recall the money ever going to what the Democratic Party said it would, except to the Unions who then, in turn, donated it back to the Democratic Party. It was a giant Ponzi-scheme.
What Obama did was screw the American people, it was nothing more than a dog and pony show.
We do it in Alaska, and to your other point, Puget sound doesn't freeze. The reason for moving Canadian oil to the gulf coast is ... 'refineries'.
Any mechanical means of transport will produce leaks and spills... pipe lines, ships, oil rigs, and any vehicle that uses lubricants to function. Yes, vehicles leak more petroleum products than pipe lines.
Give up transportation if leaks are the issue.
Oil must move or we die. One day we may not use oil for fuel, but oil is still gold to civilization. Move it the 'safest' way possible.
What most people here don't realize is that the pipeline is the most efficient and cleanest way to transport oil to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana.
The O/P has been corrected and informed before many times and still posts nonsense.
The facts of the pipeline are always the same and irrefutable; there would be no need for a pipeline if there was no American driven demand for it based upon the profits derived from oil you can buy at less than $5 a barrel and refine to sell onward at full market value.
American owned oil companies and their shareholders along with Berkshire Hathaway's Buffet and shareholders are not stupid.
Having said that; my hope is that the Keystone XL decision remains a fait accompli and Canada is forced to accelerate other pipeline options. - far less reliance upon a single entity and healthier for all concerned, vis-a-vis environmental considerations.
And you will be doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to mitigate that 'lesser risk than the alternatives' by cancelling the pipeline. What about that do you not understand?
That oil will still move through your country regardless by far more dangerous and otential for polluting methods unless and until YOUR country stops buying it.
The two parts of your platform I am challenging:
You state: It is Canada driving this expansion. It is not - Canada will advantage an American demand for the product - no more, no less than foreign ore/electonics/plastic moldings mfgrs advantage the demand by U.S. car makers to produce cars for export.
You state: Environmental concerns will be serviced by stopping a portion of the XL. They will not. It has been long known that pipelines are far safer than trains, trucks or boats. The emissions into the atmosphere of diesel trains, trucks and boats to haul this crap notwithstanding, the land it goes under is for the most part returned to it's previous usage by the owner of record who then gets paid for the access granted.
I'm on record as not being a proponent of this pipeline as it merely cements our reliance upon the U.S. to keep buying the stuff as our primary customer. It also does nothing for our providing a resource for others to profit from when Canada should be doing all it can to gain ALL of those profits for itself.
Cancelling of the pipeline does nothing to change that other than provide yet another wake-up call regarding American duplicity when the product continues to be purchased in bulk by a foreign entity that Canada is obligated via treaty to sell to at any quantity demanded, to then be sold for profit to other foreign entities, some of whom have nothing but the U.S.'s demise as a world power as their ultimate goal.
You're tilting at the wrong windmill. Your bogymen are all living in your own basement.
And why do we, as a country, want to do this just to get oil to China?
Get real, those jobs are not readily available if at all.
They need to be done. The very minimum a US citizen should expect for all the taxes they pay, is a infrastructure that is in damn good shape and ready to accommodate expanding businesses and personal enjoyment of these citizens!
What most people here don't realize is that the pipeline is the most efficient and cleanest way to transport oil to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana.
We don't need that crude oil from Canada. We are doing just fine now without the Keystone pipeline.
Don't kid yourself. China is a big player in this.
the only question Chinese companies have asked him was how many Canadian assets they could buy before eliciting a negative reaction.
Quote:
In fact, said this executive, the only question Chinese companies have asked him was how many Canadian assets they could buy before eliciting a negative reaction.
Quote:
Since then, Chinese companies have avoided scrutiny by purchasing only minority interests in Canadian energy companies or buying only the smallest operators.
The Nexen deal represents a shift in that strategy. Nexen is the biggest Canadian energy company to fall entirely under Chinese ownership. While it is not the largest player in the oil sands, its takeover means Chinese national oil companies now own about 10 percent of Canadian oil sands operations.
We risk the pollution whether the oil is shipped in rail cars or high pressure pipelines. The kicker is: the crude oil from Canada is shipped through US land for export to China! We take the risk. Are we to be suckers?
They will use Warren Buffet's trains, or use tanker trucks to move that oil, it's going to be moved one way or the other. The pipeline would have greatly reduced the carbon footprint to move that oil. Trains and trucks have accidents you know, so if you're are looking for a perfect solution, there is none. But I think trains and trucks invite a greater chance of spills than the pipe line would have.
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.
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.
That 2018 article is not about the Keystone Pipeline.
