# Keystone XL -- I don't understand the opposition **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156 "2015-01-06T20:22:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/181 "2015-01-29T21:23:04Z")
Breaking News: The Senate just passed the Keystone Pipeline bill 62-36. [http://www.c-span.org/blog/?3843](http://www.c-span.org/blog/?3843) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/182 "2015-01-29T23:34:54Z")
LOL! 5 votes shy of veto-proof majority. Its DOA, maybe the GOP congress can put that in their list of “accomplishments” (hey guess what, we made Obama veto something! Something something profit!) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/183 "2015-01-30T00:40:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > LOL! 5 votes shy of veto-proof majority. Its DOA, maybe the GOP congress can put that in their list of “accomplishments” (hey guess what, we made Obama veto something! Something something profit!) More like something something, less tax revenue. Only an idiot would veto this given the bipartisan ride it got through Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/184 "2015-01-30T06:40:28Z")
Nah. The veto is the best move for America. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/185 "2015-02-12T18:50:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Under what alternate-reality laws of economics would this be possible? Shipping the oil via train has one cost. Shipping it via pipeline has a different, lower cost. The price to extract oil from different sources varies. Some sources of oil are profitable to extract, and others aren’t. The cost of shipping is one of the factors which determines whether an oil source is profitable or not. There are always going to be some marginal sources of oil which are slightly profitable when shipped cheaply, but slightly unprofitable when shipped expensively. If we build the pipeline, those marginal sources will be extracted, and if we don’t, they won’t. See the part where I say “As long as the price of oil is high enough” Did you also see the part where I say that the current Keystone pipeline carries 700,000 bbl/day while the new pipeline will increase capacity to ~800,000 bbl/day? The effect of the Keystone XL pipeline is to create a way station for our northern plains shale oil. So let me ask you again. How much extra dilbit do you think we will be piping because of the Keystone XL and where do you think that extra petroleum will be going? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/186 "2015-02-12T19:13:53Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > For one thing, even though I’m repeating myself, comparing the XL to existing crude pipelines isn’t accurate. The XL isn’t different simply in scale, but in kind. It is a dilbit pipeline. And there is already a dilbit going across our country (albeit not over that particular aquifer). And Dilbit is really not much different than other types of heavy crude. > **[Scientists Find Canadian Oil Safe for Pipelines, but Critics Say Questions...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/scientists-find-canadian-oil-safe-for-pipelines-but-critics-say-questions-remain.html?_r=0)** > > The study found that the crude proposed for the Keystone XL pipeline posed no increased risks of transport, but environmental groups said its possible environmental hazards required scrutiny. You guys find yourselves arguing against the guys that global warming denialists are arguing against. So is science important when determining whether or not we should take global warming seriously but not so important when it comes to dilbit? Sure you want more evidence but so do global warming denialists. > [@](#): > > It has been pointed out that the aquifer varies greatly in depth, emerging to the surface in some places. Maybe the aquifer could get polluted here, maybe it couldn’t there. But anywhere this pipe breaks open is going to be the scene of an unprecedented disaster, aquifer or not. You sound a bit hysterical. You sure you’re not overreacting? > [@](#): > > What benefit to the American people does the XL provide that outweighs the near certain chance of such a disaster over the lifetime of this project? How do we justify that? Because we’re allies with Canada? Sorry, but being allies is a two-way relationship, we don’t have any obligation to let Canada walk all over us and dump their trash all over our countryside. I’ve already suggested that the proponents of this project arrange for the sludge to be refined to crude before crossing the border. That would go a long way towards making me too busy to bother with this issue, though you would still have to explain what America gets out of this deal. The Keystone XL pipeline and feeds into a hub at steel city. From there is can either go to the refineries in the gulf for eventual export or to refineries in the Midwest for consumption by the east coast. There is limited capacity to the gulf or to the Midwest and at least some of Keystone XL capacity will end up producing oil for domestic consumption. In fact, we are probably already at close to capacity for the pipeline to the gulf and any increase in volume to steel city will probably go to the Midwest. > [@](#): > > Oh I don’t know, the GOP has been blocking everything to do with the Obama administration since the day he was elected. Maybe Obama just really enjoys sticking this particular hot poker up their asses. This seems to be a pretty meaningless place for him to “stick it to them” but maybe that’s all he can do because the way he is handling immigration isn’t bothering them at all. Lets face, it Obama is doing this so that people like you can tell the difference between him and the Koch brothers. > [@](#): > > But look, I voted for him because he was way better than Mitt Romney, not because he was me. I don’t think the process or Obama is really the heart of the matter though. For a guy with such a dim view of politics, you seem to have an uncharacteristicly holy standard of conduct in this area of decision-making. Seems there should be bigger fish to fry. This is low hanging fruit. The Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved years ago and if the Republicans hadn’t made them into such a posterchild it probably would have been approved quietly years ago. But it has become a political football. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/187 "2015-02-12T19:19:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Nah. The veto is the best move for America. Probably not. The best move for America is probably subsidizing battery replacement stations along interstate highways and a mass adoption of Tesla type vehicles. But then you would have to support fracking which you may not. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/188 "2015-02-12T19:52:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > More like something something, less tax revenue. Only an idiot would veto this given the bipartisan ride it got through Congress. It is only slightly more appealing to watch Obama pander to the most extreme elements of his base than it is to watch Republicans do the same. There are two areas where the Democratic base is irrational and impractical. Both of them are the result of wishing away the real world and attempting to live in a fantasy world. The first is their desire to unring the bell on guns, they want to put that genie back in the bottle and they think that making them illegal will do the trick. The second is they want to go from an industrial oil dependent economy to one that runs entirely on renewables without the requisite transition period necessary to prevent catastrophic disruptions to our economy. Sure, it would be great if we could satisfy all our power needs with solar panels and algae urine but right now, natural gas is the most cost effective way of producing electricity and petroleum products are the most compact transportable energy source we have available. At some point in the future, our battery technology will get good enough that electric cars and trucks will be preferable in almost every way (hell we probably won’t even be doing our own driving then). Then the demand for oil will be so low that the price will drop to the point where the middle east will have a monopoly on it again but it will be a bit like having a monopoly on buggy whips. Personally, I think that Tesla should sell cars and lease the batteries. That way, they can create a series of battery stations (AKA service bays of gas stations) where you can swap out your battery for a fresh one in less time than it takes to change a tire or fill up your gas tank and only pay a service charge plus the difference in battery power. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/189 "2015-02-12T21:26:21Z")
That transition period was supposed to be the last ten years. Remember Boone Pickens’s talk of natural gas as a “bridge”? Turns out the only way to develop renewables is _to develop renewables._ Not gas, not oil, not coal. Well, it’s time to subsidize what we’ve got in that arena. And we’ve got a fair bit. And Steve Harper’s pals in Alberta can get lost. We don’t need them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/190 "2015-02-13T17:40:28Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > That transition period was supposed to be the last ten years. Remember Boone Pickens’s talk of natural gas as a “bridge”? > > Turns out the only way to develop renewables is _to develop renewables._ Not gas, not oil, not coal. > > Well, it’s time to subsidize what we’ve got in that arena. And we’ve got a fair bit. And Steve Harper’s pals in Alberta can get lost. We don’t need them. Are you under the impression that we AREN’T subsidizing renewables? We have extensive subsidies for renewables, we are at the point that throwing more money at the issue is like pushing a rope. I get it, there is an environmental cost to fossil fuels and some people think we should live like the Amish until we develop a way to power our society with solar and wind but its not likely to happen that way. The way I see it, we will develop battery technology and that will make electric cars practicable. This will increase the demand for electricity generation (after all, you can’t run a car by slapping a solar panel on the hood). That will reduce the demand for petroleum products and increase the demand for natural gas and other forms of electricity generation. Eventually solar and wind will achieve grid parity and everyone slaps solar panels on their roof. But pouting about our need for fossil fuels just makes the anti-fossil fuel crowd look infantile. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/191 "2015-02-14T02:36:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There are two areas where the Democratic base is irrational and impractical. Both of them are the result of wishing away the real world and attempting to live in a fantasy world. The first is their desire to unring the bell on guns, they want to put that genie back in the bottle and they think that making them illegal will do the trick. Who says this? Cite? > [@](#): > > The second is they want to go from an industrial oil dependent economy to one that runs entirely on renewables without the requisite transition period necessary to prevent catastrophic disruptions to our economy. Who says this? Cite? You know, it gets pretty tiresome listening to conservatives talk to the liberal voices in their heads (a condition I call “librul fever”). If you could shake that off and respond to positions that identifiable people are taking, we could have a much more meaningful debate. > [@](#): > > natural gas is the most cost effective way of producing electricity Actually, wind is the most cost effective way of producing electricity, except in really sunny places where solar is the cheapest. Natural gas power is still cheaper only in certain places. By 2020, solar is projected to be the cheapest pretty much worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/192 "2015-02-14T23:24:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Eventually solar and wind will achieve grid parity and everyone slaps solar panels on their roof. But pouting about our need for fossil fuels just makes the anti-fossil fuel crowd look infantile. You’re completely missing my point. We have lots of fossil fuel production already. We don’t need the Keystone XL, it’s a drop in the bucket. Its effect on fuel supply is not worth enough to the people whose land it runs through to offset the environmental risk. Whereas, if we had spent ALL that money on wind farms in the first place, we’d be much closer to grid parity. Oh, and electricity would be cheaper, too. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/193 "2015-02-20T15:15:57Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Who says this? Cite? > > Who says this? Cite? You must have missed just about every thread on guns on this board. There is at least one call for eliminating guns every couple of pages. The problem is that they have no chance but the desire is there. Are you seriously accusing me of tilting at imaginary windmills when I say that liberals want to ban guns? Are you fucking kidding me? > [@](#): > > You know, it gets pretty tiresome listening to conservatives talk to the liberal voices in their heads (a condition I call “librul fever”). If you could shake that off and respond to positions that identifiable people are taking, we could have a much more meaningful debate. You know its getting pretty tiresome being called a liberal by every conservative and a conservative by every liberal, guns and energy are about the only place I fall out of step with liberal dogma. > [@](#): > > Actually, wind is the most cost effective way of producing electricity, except in really sunny places where solar is the cheapest. Natural gas power is still cheaper only in certain places. By 2020, solar is projected to be the cheapest pretty much worldwide. If that were true, we would be getting our electricity from wind. But its not true. > **[Cost of electricity by source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source)** > > Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. > Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regula... ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156/194 "2015-02-20T15:33:14Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > You’re completely missing my point. > > We have lots of fossil fuel production already. We don’t need the Keystone XL, it’s a drop in the bucket. Its effect on fuel supply is not worth enough to the people whose land it runs through to offset the environmental risk. Whereas, if we had spent ALL that money on wind farms in the first place, we’d be much closer to grid parity. Oh, and electricity would be cheaper, too. What do you mean we have lots of fossil fuel production already, what does that mean? I could just as easily say, we have lots of wind farms already, we don’t need another wind farm, especially since we can’t run most cars on wind power (yet), or did you think that the dilbit was going to be burned to produce electricity (and wind is not cheaper than gas… yet)? Every oil project is a drop in the bucket, the whole bucket is made of drops in the bucket. You don’t get to tell private investors where to spend their money. Presumably they are investing their money where they think it is likely to make the best return. By the same token, I disagree with the use of eminent domain for something like Keystone XL . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keystone-xl-i-dont-understand-the-opposition/709156.md?page=9)