Ze Keystone XL Discussion is now in session!!

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Lea, Jun 26, 2015.


Do you side with the Keystone XL?

Poll closed Jan 26, 2016.
  1. Yup

  2. Nah

  3. A key that's a stone? Where can I buy one?

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. So like a day ago, I was scrolling down the status updates of my peeps on Facebook when I came across this particular subject and I was a bit surprised that I didn't learn about this sooner. As a result, I've come here to spread the word and more importantly get your opinions/views on this matter so I can gain a better picture of things from people who I perceive to not be biased for the most part. As for my views on the subject at hand, I think the Keystone XL is both bad and beneficial to some extent but I'd say that the risks greatly outweigh what one could benefit from putting up such a thing.

    (Also, if for some reason someone else put up a topic similar to this one before me then I apologize)
  2. Ze?

    What are you some kind of german stereotype?

    It's bad. It's more drilling and more chances for accidents. But, it'll bring jobs and work. Which makes it sorta good.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. How are you just hearing about this now? It's been a thing for years now.

    I'm personally against it for entirely environmental reasons. If we keep ignoring the damage that's being done to the climate in favour of more money, there won't be enough money in the world to reverse the devastation we'll have subjected ourselves to. The Keystone pipeline is another short-sighted idea that has the potential for great harm.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. A. Transport oil via pipeline, which may result in ecological damage via leaks.
    B. Transport oil via thousands of trucks and trains, which is more expensive, less efficient, and more likely to cause ecological disasters and losses of human life.
    C. Pretend we can live without oil when all plastics, vehicles, and most manufacturing requires it.

    Hmm... :ferret:

    I'm not a fan of destroying the environment. I sincerely think we need to get off the teat of oil where possible, and invest in green options. However, we're still dependent on oil at present: Therefore, it makes logical sense to develop more efficient manners in which to transport large quantities of oil. Pipelines are more efficient than a fleet of thousands of trucks and trains. Plus, if a pipeline leaks, you can measure that leak with pressure gauges at various stations along the pipeline. If it's leaking, you can figure out roughly where, and go send some folks in to fix it. If a train crashes, all the oil on that train is just straight up gone, and may outright start a raging forest fire depending on where the train crashes. The people driving that train will also probably die.

    It is only logical to pursue what is efficient until sufficient alternatives are available that render the production of a pipeline unnecessary.

    "BUT MUH ENVIRONMENT!" Irrelevant. If you block the pipeline now, that fleet of thousands of trucks and trains is still going to keep going. What do you propose, stopping the fleet of thousands of trucks and trains too? You realize if the pipeline isn't built, that fleet will grow in number to tens of thousands, right?

    We should have never let go of Petro-Canada. At least then, the funds generated by this pipeline would funnel directly back into public coffers. Bah.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. And you may be right that ultimately, that oil's getting around somehow, I don't think the pipeline's construction is necessarily going to take all the trucks and trains out of use, it's just going to redirect their distribution elsewhere. If there's one thing I know about oil companies is that they tend to just keep expanding, and having more equipment means it's all going to be used and production isn't going to slow down or be stockpiled with more moderation shown in production schedules. We're talking about companies that are making $500 billion a year in profit; you can bet none of them have any interest or incentive in using some of that money to look for alternatives, and that's what's scary. It wasn't that long ago that oil companies were using leaded gas and paying off scientists to say it wasn't harmful for people, I don't think those same companies now give a rat's ass what pretty much every scientist is saying about the climate when they're the ones who have the power, and the money, to start making a difference.

    The main problem isn't so much that we're still entirely dependent on oil for literally everything, it's that there's no effort being made to help fund, develop and research alternatives. Ideally, we'd be starting to develop the sustainable and clean alternatives now and slowly ease our civilization away from oil-based products and fuels and keep it for processes that absolutely cannot use anything else. It should never be a case of us vs. them, but there are examples of places like Costa Rica running 100% clean, renewable energy to power their country that should act as inspiration, and it shows that in some places, it can be done. Ultimately, we probably won't ever get rid of oil, but we can do what we can to make as many places as sustainable as possible to help offset the places that can't. Every little bit helps.
  6. I never said it would.
    Basic mathematics: If each truck can contain 1 ton of oil, and you're transporting 1,000 tons of oil a day, you need 1,000 trucks to transport it. If you can cut down on that to transport 600 tons of oil via pipeline, you've just reduced the needs of your fleet from 1,000 trucks to 400 trucks.

    It's still more efficient. Then again, if I had things my way, we'd have never disbanded Petro-Canada, and we'd be building our own oil refineries to produce our own gasoline, instead of shipping oil cheap down to the US and buying it upmarked in price as gasoline back. Hindsight is 20/20 though, eh', friend?
    So long as demand is maintained, certainly. If they flood the market with more oil than demand can tolerate, all they'll do is drive the price of oil down. Which is a win for the common guy, but a loss for the oil companies. So I guarantee that oil expansion will only meet oil demand.
    And they're suddenly going to start looking for alternatives if we deny them a pipeline? :ferret: Again, I'm not a fan of the oil companies, I'd have preferred if we nationalized the whole damn thing so that the resources in that ground could be reinvested back into the pockets of the people who live in this country, and not a corporate fat cat. I, however, do not get to rule my country. Therefore, I need to examine the situation: Which is the lesser evil? The pipeline is.
    Oh, really? I wonder what all of these millions of dollars is going to then. Cigars, I guess. Lots, and lots of cigars.

    Again, I hate oil companies, but can we not perpetuate the idea that we're somehow magically not investing millions and millions of dollars into alternative energy sources, when... We are? On a regular basis? Fuck, even the obvious con scheme that was Solar Roadways got two million dollars from crowdfunding alone, and another 750,000 dollars from the United States Government. We are investing in green energy. I think we could invest more money into it, granted, but scientific progress is beholden to no man. It takes time.
    Costa Rica doesn't have a GDP output nearly that of the entirety of the European Union. Not even remotely close. If you want a massive industry in the modern world, you will need oil. Period. End of debate. Until our research into alternative energy sources pans out and we can begin construction and investment into the development of fusion generators and other such technologies on a larger scale than test plants, we're not going to remove our need for oil overnight. Therefore, it only makes sense to try and stymie the potential damage of oil transportation. Pipelines are more efficient than fleets of trucks and trains.
    Yes. It does. Which is why appropriate legislation and public irritation causes this to happen. Oil companies are not our friends, but we're not as powerless as we sometimes like to believe.

    I also think that we should be executing more construction practices involving building solar panels onto the rooftops of houses, or at least giving government tax breaks to people who make the investment. We do need to transition, but I'm not going to pretend that denying the pipeline will aid in a transition in any way. There are better battles to fight than this one.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. I definitely understand and respect the points you're making, and I'm aware that they're running a business and trying to do it more efficiently, as well as my points are more rooted in optimism of what should be none instead of what will be done or what would even be practical, but damn, we've kind of shoved ourselves into a crappy corner over the past century and we have to start somewhere to start breaking free of that oil monopoly on energy somewhere, you know?

    Your link about the oil sands reclamation is encouraging, and is exactly the kind of stuff we need to start pressuring the industry as a whole to consider. Would that BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico been nearly as catastrophic as it was if they had backup means of capping that well, and technology in place to clean it up before it happened? It's not like oil spills in the ocean are anything new, there's more oil tanker catastrophes than I care to reflect upon, but since that recent spill, there's been some pretty ingenious ways shown to clean up and contain the shit - years after it happened, but still, at least it's actually something that they started doing.

    And no, I never suggested that the oil companies would start looking for alternatives if they're denied a pipeline, I'm just saying that there should be steps taken to create incentives for them to open up new ventures into starting up renewable resource ventures, by means of government tax cuts or other incentive packages - or even legislation or court orders. Back during that BP spill, both the US government took a hard stance against the company and is still trying to force them to pay the nearly $70 billion in clean up costs and if I understand correctly, the government took control of the site. Stuff like that kind of gives me hope that maybe there's a cultural shift where bit by bit, companies are being held more accountable and are taking precautions they weren't taking before. It also starts to open the door towards focusing on other aspects of environmental compliance, such as emissions controls. It's always going to be a dirty-ass industry, but technology's constantly getting better to reduce the impact oil companies have on the environment. Kind of like how companies who invest in proper safety programs end up prospering in the long run, a company that bites the bullet and starts looking at ways to reduce its footprint will also see the benefit when government controls and standards start to become more stringent. In the water industry up here in Canada, for instance, municipalities and businesses that are keeping ahead by budgeting for new equipment and replacing less-effective stuff with new controls, treatment processes, and testing procedures are finding themselves in a much better position than the places that didn't, and changes with Fisheries and Environment is making their lives hell and their operations costs are skyrocketing. Setting a date for a bar to be raised tends to do wonders in keeping companies and businesses on their toes.

    And also, I'm not insinuating clean energy isn't being invested in or developed; those solar roads you mentioned, solar panels all those wind turbines, wave turbines, hydroelectric dams, geothermal vents, ethanol and biodiesel production, and so on so forth are definitely catching on and a lot of companies are definitely leading the charge. My point was it's usually not the oil companies who are a part of any of that, and why would they be?
  8. Because, at present, it's not profitable. At least, not as much as oil is. Give it more time. The real key will be when oil barons decide to dip their fingers into other energy types. That is when we'll know that the market has swung in favour of green energy.

    In the meantime, my primary qualm with the pipeline (aside from the fact that it should be nationalized goddammit grr) is when it runs over private property or native lands without the permission of those people. It's one thing to build a pipeline--it's efficient. It's another thing to put the risk of a spill on the shoulders of peoples who never got a say in it to begin with. Then I have a problem.
  9. I also do want to apologize if I seem like I'm skimming points and going on tangents, it's not my intention, I'm just feeling quite a bit like crap health wise and it's hard to stay on target, so to speak. But do know I am reading everything you're writing, and if I'm not saying anything, know that it's because I find it largely agreeable and don't have anything to add to it.

    Yeah, and time's one of those luxuries we may or may not have, but as you, and myself, have pointed out, there's definitely steps being taken in the right direction. My main concern is if it's going to be too little, too late. It's that time-proven proverb, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    And yeah, that's a whole other pickle that I take huge issues with that I wasn't even thinking about when I crapped out my first post. Entirely agreed; first nations have a hard enough time as is with countless issues that need to be worked out with the government, the last thing they need to do is get into fights with oil companies over land use that belongs to them.
  10. At this point we've thrown too much into the ring. We can't change course now, not without doing more damage in the process than we could prevent. All we can do is stymie and try not to bleed out before we can get more green energy into the works. Ergo why I support the pipeline--it'll reduce damage overall. It won't stop it entirely, but it'll reduce it. That will buy us more time. Considering time is not a luxury, and we haven't a clue how much time we really have, it's probably best we buy as much of it was we can.
    I'd almost just offer to hire them to check the pipeline for leaks and maintain it in their own land. That way, we can give consistent jobs to first nations peoples that they can reinvest in their own lands and tribes, and get them involved productively in the process in such a way that they can blow the whistle on the oil companies if they try to pull a fast one on us. That would require them to agree, though. I'm not sure they would.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.