If oil prices stay down, I wonder how much need for a pipeline we’ll see.
Well, I want to cut through some of the nonsense, honestly on either side of the issue. For example, there’s certainly a lot of people who would rather be on the side that social justice workers are on and against what the oil companies want, but those really aren’t very good arguments at all.
However, if there’s a reasoned argument that cheaper, much dirtier oil from this source would crowd out cleaner burning fuels as a result of the pipeline, which would mean much more serious CO2 emissions than what the State Department estimated, that would be a good reason to oppose the pipeline.
Thanks for the cite, I will look at it tonight. ETA: except the link doesn’t work.
Obviously, the existence of bad arguments for a thing shouldn’t discredit the good arguments. I don’t see any reason to dwell on HuffPo’s stupid list.
Here’s a working link.
No, that’s not right. All else being equal, if you make part of the production process less expensive as compared to alternatives, then you’re going to get marginally more of that thing produced. Transportation is part of the product here.
As Ravenman points out, this Econ 101 aphorism doesn’t always apply, because there can be other factors at work. But most of the experts (70% from that cite I linked above) think there aren’t other major factors at work here and that oil sands production will increase as a result of Keystone XL.
[QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2]
In the meantime, drive less, eat less meat, live closer to one another, have fewer children, “eat local”, and so on.
[/QUOTE]
And treat each other kindly and let there be peace on earth and all that. Yeah, that’s all great. But then reality crashes in and none of this happens, or happens over a long time frame. Again, how does stopping this pipeline accomplish any of this in the short or medium term?
Look, I get what you are saying. I happen to agree that AGW is a serious issue. But realistically the only way to change this is by market forces, not wishful thinking or symbolic protests such as over this silly pipeline.
And yet, it’s being opposed by the same folks generally opposing this pipeline. Folks such as, well, you. You want to keep all the oil and coal and probably all the other fossil fuels ‘in the ground’, yet you only offer vague alternatives that we already know don’t scale up to meet the current demand, and aren’t likely too in an sort of short term time line. You are talking decades or centuries before we could get to a viable alternative using wind and solar combined with geothermal and hydro that’s comparable to what we use today…and anything short of that would kill, literally, billions and probably cause even more environmental damage from the death throes of our global civilization. We COULD do nuclear, but that’s just not in the cards in any kind of realistic time frame either.
Which means we are about to wishing on a star and symbolically blocking things like this pipeline because of woo and ignorance and feel good politics. I don’t have a dog in this fight…I don’t really care about this pipeline one way or another. It’s not going to give ME a job, and not going to substantially drop the price of anything I buy or use. It’s not going to impact the environment very much, aside from what it impacts during construction, and having been to the parts of the country in the US and Canada proposed I don’t think we’ll be missing much. The CO2 used to produce the pipeline will defray that used to ship the oil conventionally, so that’s a wash. The bottom line is, oppose the pipeline or not, that oil will still be used regardless, and all the wishful thinking and crying over the environment won’t change that a bit. The only thing that will is a viable alternative that’s economically sound and that people across the planet will want to buy and use. When you have one, come back and we’ll talk some more.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
No, that’s not right. All else being equal, if you make part of the production process less expensive as compared to alternatives, then you’re going to get marginally more of that thing produced. Transportation is part of the product here.
As Ravenman points out, this Econ 101 aphorism doesn’t always apply, because there can be other factors at work. But most of the experts (70% from that cite I linked above) think there aren’t other major factors at work here and that oil sands production will increase as a result of Keystone XL.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so in the short term there will be a marginal increase in production. That same increase would come when/if the price of oil goes up as well as a number of other factors. Without the pipeline do you actually think that this resource wouldn’t be used anyway, whether over a longer or shorter time frame? It’s going to be the price of oil per barrel that REALLY affects this (that and technological development of alternatives), not this pipeline, at least IMHO, and you are quibbling about marginal effects.
See my first post in this thread. Yes, these costs are marginal. Of course the overall price of oil is more important than which oil we use. But when the benefits are also marginal, the question remains whether the marginal benefits outweigh the marginal costs.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Here’s a working link.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I read the link but I must be missing something (I only read the summary so I probably am). Having more oil available from Canada doesn’t equate to more demand, nor does it equate to more refining capacity. Are the folks projecting a net increase by the 2030’s also projecting a large increase in US demand AND US refining capability during this time frame? If not, what are they using to account for this increase in CO2 except using the raw amount of oil produced and calculating CO2 based on that figure alone?
And I agree with this argument…which is why I said both that some of the arguments against the pipeline are rational AND that I have no dog in this fight. Both sides seem to be going with over the top arguments either that this is an economic boom being repressed by the evil administration or the worst ecological disaster since a big rock wiped out the dinosaurs.
I don’t know if the marginal benefits will outweigh the marginal costs, to be honest. And I doubt we can get a politics free view on this at this point, since so much political bullshit has been tied up in this silly thing.
It’s not an “either or”, there are plans to build the Northern Gateway pipeline to the west coast regardless of the eventual Keystone XL decision. This has the terrific triple-whammy of (a) exploiting the dirty oil sands to the max, (b) leaking oil all over some of the most pristine natural habitats in western Canada, and (c) creating the world’s largest oil spills from supertankers off the BC coast.
And this is part of the problem – it’s not just Keystone, it’s a mindset that is seeking to invest billions in the long-term future of oil in general and the oil sands in particular. If these things happen they will inevitably encourage – and indeed economically require – increasingly accelerated exploitation of the oil sands, and we will all be paying the price for generations. It is moving in exactly the wrong direction, encouraged by the present right-wing federal government which is stridently pro-oil and historically contemptuous of the environment. Fortunately, this government won’t be in power forever, perhaps not even beyond next October’s election.
I’d find it humorously delightful if Keystone XL got approved and then a future Canadian government hit the oil sands developers with tight new environmental regulations!
Aren’t there other pipelines already built and used in the United States that are practically identical to what Keystone XL would be?
In other words, why all the huge uproar over this particular one?
Hint: we elected a liberal president in 2008, and he is beholden to the environmental lobby, whether their interests be rational or not.
Unprovable prediction: If McCain were president the Keystone would have been long built without any resistance.
It is not going to stay in the ground. Even if the current price of oil causes it to cease to be cost-effective to get it out of the ground, that is only a temporary situation. It WILL come out, it WILL be sold, and it WON’T be stopped.
This pipe dream that some people have that the energy industry will suddenly see things their way and abandon projects like oil sands extraction is silly. The only way it will stop is if legislation is passed that forbids it, and politicians don’t win elections by throwing away revenue and causing the price of oil to rise.
For starters, WHERE this pipeline is planned is a huge issue. There are local lawsuits/opposition in both Nebraska and South Dakota, for example, that are not dependent upon Obama’s actions. I don’t think McCain would have had any easier time overcoming the opposition of the Yankton Sioux, e.g., and they could potentially have this pipeline tied up in the courts for years to come.
By that logic we will keep extracting all fossil fuels until we return – with explosive and catastrophic speed – to the climate of the Cretaceous from whence all that carbon came. One would hope that humanity isn’t that suicidally stupid. Keystone XL is both practically and symbolically important because it highlights just that question, and effectively asks us to decide – knowing what we know now about climate and the environment – whether we want to take a giant step backward, or take the first baby steps toward progress. Politicians, unless they are exceptional leaders, are usually self-serving sycophants who won’t react unless they are beaten over the head with self-evident facts and consequences, and that eventuality is both inevitable and not far distant.
Yes, we are. Sweet dreams.
True, and much of the local opposition is based on real risks from pipeline leaks in environmentally sensitive areas, and leaks happen all the time. And two other things that are different than most other pipelines:
[ul]
[li]It crosses an international border, so needs State Department approval (the original Keystone did, too).[/li]
[li]It’s not 1940 any more, it’s now 2015. Our energy policies should reflect contemporary knowledge and environmentally sustainable strategies.[/li][/ul]
Maybe, maybe not. Given the current trajectory of wind and other renewables, it is entirely possible that by the time the “temporary” situation ends, they are economically competitive with dirty oil. In that case, there’s no longer an incentive to mine the oil sands.
The best economic estimates to date are that the KXL will cause gas prices to RISE in the Midwest. by making it easier to get oil to the export terminals. The Canadians have made it quite clear that’s why they want the pipeline.
“Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian Crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing the oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus of light synthetic crude develops in PADD II, the Keystone XL pipeline would provide an alternative market and therefore help to mitigate a price discount. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of U.S. $2 billion to U.S. $3.9 billion.” – Keystone XL Pipeline Section 52 Application to the Canadian National Energy Board [PDF !], Section 3: Supply and Markets, Section 3.4.3, Crude Pricing Impact, p. 7.
In other words, somebody will be paying the Canadians an additional couple of billion dollars for the same amount of crude. Who do you suppose that somebody will be?
Maybe, but there are hopeful signs. With regard to your USAF moniker you might note that the Pentagon has issued multiple reports on the security implications of climate change, this being the latest:
I also seem to recall the USAF promoting biofuels, and issuing directives against fuels whose production involved large carbon footprints. I would consider Keystone XL with its linkage to the tar sands to be in that category; the EU certainly does.
[QUOTE=slash2k]
Maybe, maybe not. Given the current trajectory of wind and other renewables, it is entirely possible that by the time the “temporary” situation ends, they are economically competitive with dirty oil. In that case, there’s no longer an incentive to mine the oil sands.
[/QUOTE]
You aren’t by chance one of those Peak Oil™ guys trying desperately to make the theory work by advocating we do nothing to develop resources until it’s too late, are you? 
(I’m just kidding btw, but I love poking at those guys)
Like the Temperance movement of before regarding prohibition, the move to not consider the environment and control emissions will only lead to a complete defeat of even the ones that would had offered moderated solutions to this issue.
So, making a future that will become a better place where only outfits like Greenpeace (that even I do not agree with many of their ideas) will have the respect and the chance to become more powerful just for not being part of the denial machine that is ruling politics now.
“Sweet dreams” indeed. [sarcasm]
The Keystone Pipeline already exists in Texas and much of the Midwest, so it’s just the link from Canada under debate. Texas is riddled with pipelines, but you wouldn’t know it, they’re underground and major spills are unheard of, but even here there is tremendous opposition from property owners over the government using eminent domain to take their land for the benefit of private corporations. Honestly, it’s hard to argue greater public good when it’s really just the good of big oil. Also, environmentalists have decided to take a hard stand on this because mining the tar sands is one of the ultimate rapes of Mother Earth you could ever think or dream of. Real disappointed there’s not more opposition to destroying the Boreal forests in Canada.