If you ignore the mountain of analysis and opinion about the pending Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, it is easy to tell President Obama whether he should approve or disapprove it. Read some of that stuff, and it gets harder.
Congress has given the president 60 days to decide. He wanted to wait until after the November elections to deal with this explosive political issue, but Republicans inserted the requirement in a bill he couldn’t afford to veto.
Big oil and its friends argue that the l,700-mile pipeline will provide future oil needs, reduce American dependence on Middle East oil, and create many jobs. Environmentalists contend that it will harm flora and fauna, pollute air and possibly groundwater, and risk spills that could do serious damage.
Look further into the matter, and you will find a lot of exaggeration with overstatements on both sides.
On the big oil side, the TransCanada Corp., which wants to build the pipeline from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States, claims that it could produce as many as 250,000 permanent jobs, besides the 20,000 construction temporaries. But the Washington Post’s FactChecker, Glenn Kessler, notes that both the temporary and the “spinoff” predictions could shrink with a drop in the price of oil. And the spinoff jobs include 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 1,714 bartenders and 898 reporters, if you can believe it. The State Department puts job estimates at a mere 5,000 to 6,000 temporaries and 50 permanent.
As for greenhouse gases that would be produced, Friends of the Earth claims that the earth-damaging emissions would add more than the exhaust from 6 million new cars on U.S. roads. NASA’s renowned climatologist, who perpetually warns about global warning, joined a protest group at the White House and said, “If we burn the oil in the Canadian tar sands, it’s essentially game over for the climate.”
For the project to go forward, the Canadian company needs a State Department approval authorized by the President. The State Department says it cannot complete its final environmental impact statement by the deadline and thus can make no recommendation for or against approval. Its preliminary statement strongly suggests that it favors the project. It brushed off threats to beasts and birds as temporary and minimized danger to air and water.
Cancellation will probably do little to curb global demand for Canada’s mammoth oil sands deposits. Other pipelines will continue to bring the oil to U.S. distilleries. And climate change will go on as it always has.
So President Obama, caught between the conflicting claims of big oil and the powerful environmentalist lobby, is expected to decide against the pipeline and face the disapproval of its advocates.
He hasn’t governed in over a year, but has been campaigning instead. So does anyone really think he will put politics aside when he decides this? Riiiiiiight.
The ‘eco’ in ecology and economy are one in the same…it’s a shame that experts in the former are hopelessly ignorant in the later.
It’s also a shame that those totally consumed by the economy have their heads burried in the sand. At some point in time that sand will run our of oil. At what time do you think we should be looking to alternatives?
In the oil/tar sand??
300 years maybe
At the rate that we are consuming it, I doubt that we have that long. I would think that there will be a lot of blood spilt in the next 50 to 100 years over oil and the price of it.
According to Petroleum Economist, “Although tar sands occur in
more than 70 countries, the bulk is found in Canada in four regions:
Athabasca, Wabasca, Cold Lake, Peace River; together covering an area
of some 77,000 km2”.(1) In fact, the
reserve considered to be technically recoverable is estimated at
280-300 Gb (billions of barrels), larger than the Saudi Arabia oil
reserves [optimistically] estimated at 240 Gb. The total reserves for
Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are
estimated at 1,700-2,500 Gb.
I think whoever makes the break through in batteries that are capable of storing solar/wind/etc. generated electricity will be very rich people. I hope and pray that there are people working on this. Imagine what might have been if we had put the money we pissed away in Iraq into research of alternative energy.
10 years or so ago I heard of a company in upstate NY that had this magic long life battery. They had an IPO and that was the last I heard of them.
Unless we explore and drillyou may be right.
In the last 10 years China has vigorously tied up Oil production from a number of countries. They have bought (not leased) entire unpumped/untouched oil fields from Saudi Arabia. They are building a pipeline to the Irrawaddy delta in Myanmar for natural gas and are pushing for oil concessions. They have plans to push Russia a bit by constructing a pipeline to the Caspian. There is practically nowhere on the planet that they do not have oil deals. Africa South America…. even the US proper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16404499
WE better get on the ball a bit or we will be buying our oil from China after they process it there and we get their overflow. These folks that say that oil is on the world market have little idea what that means. It determines the price but it doesn’t determine access.
A few windmills and solar collectors purchased in China don’t mean squat.
We had best stop buying our technology elsewhere. I beleiver we still have enough people in this country that can build the best products in the world given the opportunity.
I think that we should NOT BUILD the pipeline, that way all that nasty ol oil will be sure to go directly to China, greatly enhancing their world domination.
Meanwhile we can all run around in little battery cars with windmills on the roof so the “greenies” can be so proud of their ‘accomplishments”.
why yes, we need more oil when we are selling refined product abroad and raising prices on it here. and sure dont look for alternatives to oil because it will last forever.
and yes lets forget about the ecology as long as i can pollute YOUR yard and YOUR air
“The ‘eco’ in ecology and economy are one in the same…it’s a shame that experts in the former are hopelessly ignorant in the later.”
no, its a shame the experts in the latter are only concerned about the dollars and are ignorant about the former
Do you need to be reminded about the half billion dollars of tax payer money lost by the failed solar panel manufacturer, Solyndra and other failed green energy projects amount to billions of dollars of misspent tax payer money? Most forms of energy production can’t survive unless they are continually subsidized but the government at enormous costs. You picked the wrong phrase when you stated, “The ‘eco’ in ecology and economy are one in the same”. The longer this country waits to become energy independent the longer it will take for it to become prosperous.
you need to be reminded that fossil fuels are a finite resource. whats your plan for when they are gone?
and lets not talk about tax payer money for green projects, then we will have to discuss subsidies for big oil and some of thedealings of the previous adminis.traion
Fossil fuel a finite resource? Well, the number of stars in the Universe in finite too. Right now the US has at least a 300-year proven reserve of fossil fuels, not to mention what is left to be discovered. Furthermore, I’m all in favor of eliminating all subsidies. Absent these, very dispersed sources of energy like sun light and wind will never come close to competing economically with more concentrated sources of energy found in fossils, at least not in those areas where the electrical grid exists.
so start running your car on coal laddie, thats the 300 year supply of fossil fuels you’re talking about.
so when gas and heating oil is 8-9 dollars a gallon enjoy it, because if you think we can drill or develop tar sands our way out of this, you are as deluded as the part time alaska governor that bleated , drill , baby, drill
sun light and wind are not the only alternatives
Fracking, a process of extracting oil from old oil wells and humongous shale oil deposits in North Dakota and surrounding states combined with horizontal drilling technology has greatly expanded our proven reserves of oil. Likewise with natural gas, a near 100% clean fuel. These reserves alone are projected to last way beyond 100 years. No need to resort to all that coal we have, maybe not even in the next 300 years. Also, IBM has just announced it has developed a fuel cell that is cheaper, faster charging, and holds 5 times the energy capacity as the most advanced fuel cells on the market. It expects to have it available commercially in roughly 5 to 7 years. Ford has just announced its latest electric Ford Fusion is capable of running 100 miles for the equivalent cost of one gallon of unleaded gasoline. With IBM’s technology it would be able to travel over 500 miles without the need to recharge. As you can see, the landscape in technology is changing rapidly, thus making it possible to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.
Yes, drill baby, drill to end our dependence on foreign oil while reducing our consumption of fossil fuels through economically viable technology. Solar panels and wind turbines will become relatively obsolete.
funny thing about fracking, a load of people with polluted wells just dont have too much good to say about it..its just too bad that the ones that think its such a great idea, like you, wouldnt be the ones to have them frack next door
Fracking has been going on for more than 2 decades, I believe. What’s different now are improved methods combined with horizontal drilling. There are very few reported cases of ground water pollution because the procedure is done at very low depths, that is, well beneath the water level from which deep water well systems draw water. The main source of pollution in the past arose from chemicals mixed in the water used in the fracking process. These chemicals have now been replaced with other substances that are relatively harmless.
The title of this editorial should be..
Big Jobs, Cheaper energy Vs. Democrat Special Interest groups.
as our governor says “bull sh*t”
“But the Washington Post’s FactChecker, Glenn Kessler, notes that both the temporary and the “spinoff” predictions could shrink with a drop in the price of oil. And the spinoff jobs include 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 1,714 bartenders and 898 reporters, if you can believe it. The State Department puts job estimates at a mere 5,000 to 6,000 temporaries and 50 permanent”
did you miss this part?
Washington Post… did you miss this part./
This is an election year you know.
Why do you think Obama wanted to delay it?
and that comment just told me what your opinion is worth
Really?
Will “oil” from Canadian tar sands reduce global oil prices?
Nossah
Will they sell us this “oil” at below market prices?
Nossah
The GOP fools no one.
Yessah
Cheaper energy for China who will be the recipient of this oil. This oil is not headed for the US market. It is already spoken for in a deal between China and Canada.
Why are Republicans working so hard to promote China. Have they given up on us?
You are incorrect. Canada will sell it to China directly. Via a proposed pipeline to Vancouver. If the US pipeline is built it will be controlled by the US market and sold to South America. You have confused a few stories. If it is refined in Texas it will not pass through the Panama Canal. Tankers are too big to fit.
Special interest? Just the 99% of us who want to see the planet survive the mad rush for more money on the part of the 1%. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Secret+Environment+Canada+presentation+warns+oilsands+impact+habitat/5894992/story.html
Maine has the resources to create electricity from the sun and wind. The cost of the equipment is decreasing and the fuel is free and non-polluting. The cost of oil, coal, and natural gas is always going to increase.
These are facts not recycled sound bites produced by special interests to give cover to those who make money in the dirty energy industries.
@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Maine has the resources to create electricity from the sun
and wind. The cost of the equipment is decreasing and the fuel is free and non-polluting.
The cost of oil, coal, and natural gas is always going to increase.
These are facts not recycled sound bites produced by special
interests to give cover to those who make money in the dirty energy industries.
@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Maine has the resources to create electricity from the sun
and wind. The cost of the equipment is decreasing and the fuel is free and
non-polluting. The cost of oil, coal, and natural gas is always going to
increase.
These are facts not recycled sound bites produced by special
interests to give cover to those who make money in the dirty energy
industries.
It is obvious to all that anti-science anti-intellectual conservatives reject the robust and compelling peer reviewed scientific evidence that humans are warming the planet.
..and believe these Undeniable Truths…
The Earth is Flat
The Moon is made of Green Cheese
and Babies come from the Cabbage Patch.
Tar sand “oil” (it ain’t petroleum) will be shipped to the Gulf Coast where it will be refined and exported.
Any that is sold in the US will be sold at international market prices – which is currently greater than $100 a barrel.
It will not reduce gasoline prices.
It is a scam and a climate disaster disaster.
Yessah
Climategate emails, anyone? I guess a good peer-review to you, is when the scientists who push the anthropogenic global climate change position, on how best to skew the data to make things look hotter than they really are.
Oh and what about former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore, who says the global warming agenda is a pure political push? The guy, for his efforts, is now bashed in his bio on the current Greenpeace web page. I’m all for clean air and water, but CO2 emissions are natural, and accounts for 0.039% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Oh and don’t forget a bunch of scientists have been on record as disagreeing with the global climate change crowd. Here are just a few in a nice educational style video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647
Have a great, sunny day.
Solar energy production in Maine is severly limited due to the lowest rate of annual insolation due to higher latitude and climate.
No, that is not true – solar works everywhere in Maine – and well. Published maps of solar irradiance clearly show you to be wrong.
Maine’s annual average solar resource (flat plate at latitude tilt) is 3-4 kWh per meter square per day – which is the same a south Texas , Louisiana and Alabama.
There are thousands of homes in Maine that use solar energy systems – and they all work – well.
The GOP fools no one.
yessah
“NASA’s renowned climatologist, who perpetually warns about global warning, joined a protest group at the White House and said, “If we burn the oil in the Canadian tar sands, it’s essentially game over for the climate.”
The “renowned climatologist” referred to is James Hansen, notorious global warming alarmist, who’s been improperly receiving outside income for his advocacy work for left-wing groups.
“Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal , now over a million dollars of outside income”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Yeah, there’s a reliable source.
Obama wants to wait till after the election so he can get contributions and votes from both sides of this particular dust-up
What does it take for you Obama bashers to learn? Those who spend money on candidates do so based on who they think will win. They hedge their positions by funding those who might finish strong as well. The goal, remember, is to have a friend in office. Once friends, the name or party are no longer relevant.
If you don’t like the stakes, demand candidates that will fight to get the money out of our elections. It is possible. Jimmy Carter was elected with no private funding. It was that recently that we had clean elections. Until we get the money out, our votes are being bought. The one who spends the most money in an election in America wins 94% of the time.
We need to get the money out. Watch in the next year or two when this idea really starts to gain traction. It could remake America as a country where the people really do count for something.
Few issues here:
Although, it is true that the Payroll Tax Cut extension includes language requiring to make the decision in 60 days the project was initially received by the State Department in September 2008. The way this is written gives the impression that there has been no work on this previously and misleads readers.
2) The editorial does not even attempt to raise any of the “Big Oil” arguments regarding enhanced energy security. Not once. Instead it questions the silly Republican arguments about jobs. Clearly, the job figures may be overblown, but then you should probably joint out the hyperbole on the other side, which leads me to…
3) Friends of the Earth? They are a reputable organization? How about a statement from the State Department or an independent group!
4) First off it is global warming not global warning. Typo, fair enough. Secondly, the quote is from Jim Hansen who is a controversial figure in climate science and policy. They should probably point that out, I mean the guy was arrested at the White House during a protest of the proposed project. Is he really the best person to provide an unbiased view of the project?
Basically, my general problem with this is that the editorial complains about the amount of hyperbole about the project and then simply goes through the same misinformation. This is a complex issue and the BDN once again instead of actually doing actual analysis just repeats the gobbledygook that is so frustrating about public policy debates today. Instead of going through the “mountain of analysis” it is very clear that the author of this editorial did not do anything of the sort and did some very lazy writing.
The lemmings go marching on, ta da ta da, the lemmings go marching on, ta da ta da, the lemming go marching 2 by 2, ta da ta da, the lemmings go marching on blah blah blah…
Oil sands (aka tar sands) processing is a dirty job indeed and not just for the processing emissions. Processing a sand slurry is damaging to equiment, the lifetime of which is severely decreased. I like to see a complete, realistic cost/benefit/pollution analysis of the whole process including the necessary pipelining.
There’s plenty to be concerned about in terms of the environmental impact of the Alberta oilsands project, and not just from the perspective of the Keystone Pipeline. Even Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers spokesman admits “there was a need for further monitoring, research and review of impacts.”
It’s inconvenient for us to be concerned about the global impact of all of this, but more and more evidence supports our reluctance in getting more involved. That the alternative customer for oil-sands production is China fits well with that country’s disregard for their own environment. With that reality, why would they care what happens to the Canadian environment?
Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Secret+Environment+Canada+presentation+warns+oilsands+impact+habitat/5894992/story.html#ixzz1jGP4dUwS
The difference between big oil and little ecology:
1. Little Ecology was not involved in assassinating President Kennedy
see
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK by
Peter Dale Scott http://motherbird.com/deep_politics.html
2.Little Ecology did not bring our planet Past the Point of No Return with regards to climate change and global warming see http://www.350.org/
The History Channel made a 9 part series about the Assassination of President Kennedy.The last show in the series was called THE GUILTY MEN.It details the evidence for President Kennedy being assassinated by the FBI and Big Oil.After becoming the most popular show in the series the History Channel pulled it off the air and refuse to sell it.Google the guilty men jfk youtube and watch the 45 minute version or click here to watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgNfQYpS1gQ
Big oil killed JFK? No.
JFK just signed a bill that was going to audit the (non)Federal Reserve banking cartel and strip it of its ability to loan money to the United States with immediate interest attached to it. The legislation he signed would have allowed competing currencies to operate within the borders of the United States, which would have further put the (non)Federal Reserve guys out of business.
Before JFK, it was Louis T. McFadden (a US Senator) who spoke out against and proposed legislation for the (non)Federal Reserve banking cartel. He too was murdered, by poisoning.
I say “(non)Federal Reserve” bank because it isn’t a government agency. It is a private bank that lends money they print out of thin air to the US government with immediate interest attached to it.
thanks for detailing the evidence and watching the documentary THE GUILTY MEN.
You did watch the documentary THE GUILTY MEN?
Jimmy Carter said we would be out of oil ages ago.
We are finding oil and natural gas in quantities
that would make the OPEC nations pale in comparison.
But what do we do? Give 2B to Brazil so George Soros
can make even more money and we will be Brazil’s best
customer. We can keep on being held over a barrel by the
likes of Hugo and some others when in reality we could be
producing more than we could use. Nawwww, let’s go wee wee
the money on solar panels, wasn’t that the almost communist
green czar’s baby? We would much rather keep Hugo in business
rather than get oil from Canada or worse, drill our own!
Green this!
Tar Sands Is Going To Happen….!
Somebody is going to burn it and it might as well be the US.