Keystone XL Pipeline Project poll

[Frodo]

[bedstuy]

I think the answer is clearly yes.  Neutral experts in the government studied the environmental impact to death and the EIS supports building the pipeline.  I think it literally said that the pipeline wouldn't affect the extraction rate of oil sands. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is one issue where I think both sides are greatly exaggerating their claims.  For one, this isn't going to create very many jobs at all, and Boehner is mostly pushing for this because he is invested in several different oil companies that will only benefit from the project and up their stock performances.  On the other hand, the environmental concerns are greatly exaggerated and, if anything, the pipeline will be better for the environment just because it's safer than transporting oil by rail.  I guess that for that reason, I'm for the pipeline, but I won't hesitate to change my mind if there's evidence that the project is unsafe.

So, Yes (D).

[H. Ross Peron]

This is one issue where I think both sides are greatly exaggerating their claims.  For one, this isn't going to create very many jobs at all, and Boehner is mostly pushing for this because he is invested in several different oil companies that will only benefit from the project and up their stock performances.  On the other hand, the environmental concerns are greatly exaggerated and, if anything, the pipeline will be better for the environment just because it's safer than transporting oil by rail.  I guess that for that reason, I'm for the pipeline, but I won't hesitate to change my mind if there's evidence that the project is unsafe.

So, Yes (D).

[Sol]

Hooking ourselves to even more oil is bad, so no.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hooking ourselves to even more oil is bad, so no.

It isn't as simple as 'oil vs. renewable stuff,' though, and that's what a lot of well-intentioned environmentalists don't seem to get.  As long as the energy economy is oil-based, the least the government can do is keep things steady until it's phased out.

[Hatman 🍁]

I used to be neutral on this, but from what I've heard about the environmental assessment, it's a big sham. The company has been covering up its terrible environmental record up here, such as a giant explosion that happened a few years ago in northern Alberta. So, I oppose this.

What's really weird with Canada is, we have all of this oil in Alberta, yet in Eastern Canada we get our oil from the middle east! Instead of shipping the oil eastward. Makes no sense.

[ElectionsGuy]

Absolutely, I see almost no reason not to do it.

[bedstuy]

I used to be neutral on this, but from what I've heard about the environmental assessment, it's a big sham. The company has been covering up its terrible environmental record up here, such as a giant explosion that happened a few years ago in northern Alberta. So, I oppose this.

What's really weird with Canada is, we have all of this oil in Alberta, yet in Eastern Canada we get our oil from the middle east! Instead of shipping the oil eastward. Makes no sense.

What do you mean by this?  Have you read any of the EISs and are you familiar with how the NEPA process works?  Creating a sham EIS would be immensely dumb and counter-productive.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Absolutely, I see almost no reason not to do it.

[tmthforu94]

Of course.

[Flake]

Absolutely not. Ever.

[DINGO Joe]

Well, as I've said in other threads, I expect the benefits to the US from Keystone to be little or none.  Canadian oil is largely pent up in the Midwest and Rockies and fetches a below (global) market price meaning that the Midwest and Rockies consumers get oil and oil products at a discounted price.  If the Canadian oil reaches the coast, then it can fetch a global price, not necessarily from US buyers.  Rockies and Midwest consumers will probably pay a little more, though by the time Keystone is completed, supply growth could mean Keystone is inadequate to relieve Canadian oversupply.  Also, if the Canadian oil is merely exported to Asia (the Panama Canal expansion glitches could make that tricky) then why don't the Canadians build a pipeline themselves to the West Coast--which they're working on, but it's further behind than the Keystone and has it's opposition too.

As to whether pipeline or train is better or safer, I've thrown in my 2 cents worth on other threads too--pipelines are better for light, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Utica and trains are better for Oil Sands, but refineries that run each are located in the wrong places for each, and refineries are making too much money right now to stop and retool.  Really I'd rather the pipline take Bakken oil to the GC and that refineries there were geared to processing it.

The Machiavellian part of me says no because I believe there is a slight economic benefit to keeping Canadian oil bottled up, the pragmatist in me says build it because it's much ado about nothing.

[DINGO Joe]

I used to be neutral on this, but from what I've heard about the environmental assessment, it's a big sham. The company has been covering up its terrible environmental record up here, such as a giant explosion that happened a few years ago in northern Alberta. So, I oppose this.

What's really weird with Canada is, we have all of this oil in Alberta, yet in Eastern Canada we get our oil from the middle east! Instead of shipping the oil eastward. Makes no sense.

Well, they're trying to get the oil to East Canada too, as a pipeline reversal project is in the works,  and there is actually a record amount of US oil going to Eastern Canada refiners, so you're not getting as much foreign oil as you think, or at least the oil is US not African or ME.

[JerryArkansas]

Yes, but I also support the funding for wind farm and nuclear power plants also.  We should make a push for making more energy, and also making our power grid safer and stronger against threats.

[Sol]

Hooking ourselves to even more oil is bad, so no.

It isn't as simple as 'oil vs. renewable stuff,' though, and that's what a lot of well-intentioned environmentalists don't seem to get.  As long as the energy economy is oil-based, the least the government can do is keep things steady until it's phased out.

Why don't we just start phasing it out now then?

[Hatman 🍁]

I used to be neutral on this, but from what I've heard about the environmental assessment, it's a big sham. The company has been covering up its terrible environmental record up here, such as a giant explosion that happened a few years ago in northern Alberta. So, I oppose this.

What's really weird with Canada is, we have all of this oil in Alberta, yet in Eastern Canada we get our oil from the middle east! Instead of shipping the oil eastward. Makes no sense.

What do you mean by this?  Have you read any of the EISs and are you familiar with how the NEPA process works?  Creating a sham EIS would be immensely dumb and counter-productive.

Well this came out conveniently after the environmental assessment was released: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pipeline-rupture-report-raises-questions-about-transcanada-inspections-1.2521959

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Only if Canada nationalizes the tar sands.

[Cory]

I think the answer is clearly yes.  Neutral experts in the government studied the environmental impact to death and the EIS supports building the pipeline.  I think it literally said that the pipeline wouldn't affect the extraction rate of oil sands. 

[Peter the Lefty]

No, No, No.

[7,052,770]

It would probably be a prudent political decision, and having Republicans go into power over this will end up causing a lot more environmental damage than the pipeline alone will.

[SWE]

No, terrible idea

[dead0man]

Yes, I see no good reason to be against it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, I see no good reason to be against it.

[sdu754]

Hooking ourselves to even more oil is bad, so no.

It isn't as simple as 'oil vs. renewable stuff,' though, and that's what a lot of well-intentioned environmentalists don't seem to get.  As long as the energy economy is oil-based, the least the government can do is keep things steady until it's phased out.

Why don't we just start phasing it out now then?

Oil won't be "phased out" as there isn't a good alternative to it that's cheap enough. If solar & wind power were economically feasible, private industry would be investing in developing those sources.

If the US would keep that oil here and use it to offset oil imported from the middle east, it would be better for the environment. The pipeline would bring oil in that would replace oil brought in by large tankers. Moving oil via tankers has a much bigger impact on the environment, plus a bigger chance of environmental disasters. It would also hurt Americans enemies (Middle east & Russia)