To the pipeline Obama says no but

Open and general public discussions about things outside of Lakewood.

Moderator: Jim DeVito

kate e parker

To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby kate e parker » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:46 am

Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. And today, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada. Also, one word...Solyndra.

I myself am gonna invest in a Chevy Volt. Oh wait...


Valerie Molinski
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby Valerie Molinski » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:42 pm

kate e parker wrote:*crickets*



It didn't appear to me that you were looking for a discussion here.


kate e parker

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby kate e parker » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:42 am

Valerie Molinski wrote:It didn't appear to me that you were looking for a discussion here.


the internet gods have spoken


Valerie Molinski
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby Valerie Molinski » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:19 am

kate e parker wrote:
Valerie Molinski wrote:It didn't appear to me that you were looking for a discussion here.


the internet gods have spoken


You're giving yourself too much credit, I think.


kate e parker

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby kate e parker » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:00 am

You're giving yourself too much credit, I think.


you think therefore you are.


ryan costa
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby ryan costa » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:50 am

all oil imported from Canada should go to refineries built North of the 38 degree north parallel line. The Pipeline is a powerplay by monopolist texas oil refineries and a political power play by the folks in that region who want to have that much more power.

just the same, if the pipeline is built from Canada to Texas, the state and federal governments will end up shelling out tens of billions of dollars to mitigate through and around existing infrastructure. that is just the way these things end up working.

to the extent that solar devices are not "commercially viable", this is no different than nearly every other consumer good and technological good for sale in the united states. for the same reasons. The Dollar is backed by the physical economic activity of the united states. manufacturing and agriculture. so, when you buy a bag of potato chips for a dollar, you are getting a dollars worth of potato chips.


"shall we have peace" - Henry Charles Carey
Valerie Molinski
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby Valerie Molinski » Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:52 pm

Renewable energy sources aren't in high demand because either they're doing it wrong, the technology isn't there yet, or they have resistance from existing energy producers and their friends in government. The last part will go away in one hell of a hurry if the price is right on a new source of energy. Are you saying that renewable energy groups arent worth fleshing out because some of them failed? Because they are going to fail until we get wise to the fact that we need to start working harder to figure it out.

Renewable energy resources aren't in high demand because oil is still relatively cheap. I'm not sure why oil companies aren't leading the way in renewable energy sources, since oil is a finite resource on this planet... a finite supply with growing demand.

Let's talk about the pipeline, though.

I'd like to point out that Obama blocked the pipeline because congress placed an unreasonably short deadline on the decision. It WILL come up again and he may very well decide the complete opposite if given sufficient time to examine the details. You could also say that part of it was a political game and he will approve it at a more advantageous time for him, but you are fooling yourself if you think that that the other side wouldn't do the same.

The thousands of jobs created argument? No way. Maybe hundreds, but not thousands.

Further, why do you think the oil is going to the gulf of mexico and not the large domestic consumers of fuel?

It is because there are giant ports down there. This debate is not about whether we're going to import canadian oil. There are plenty of pipelines for that and we already do. This is whether Canada is going export crude to Asia or South America/Europe.

It has always confused me with the whole 'cheap domestic oil now!' and 'oil self sufficiency' argument is the fact oil is a world commodity, traded on the global stage, often in dollars. Whether we produce it here or not, we are still paying this world price because the opportunity cost of producing here and charging less would be the lost money we could receive on the international markets.

Basically, where some specific oil is produced and where it ends up isn't all that relevant. There is a finite amount, and price is set on an international level.


User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:43 pm

Valerie Molinski wrote:The thousands of jobs created argument? No way. Maybe hundreds, but not thousands.

Further, why do you think the oil is going to the gulf of mexico and not the large domestic consumers of fuel?




And

If it is that good for USA, why do they have to tell so many lies about i to make it seem better?


.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Will Brown
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:56 am
Location: Lakewood

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby Will Brown » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:03 pm

Valerie Molinski wrote:Renewable energy sources aren't in high demand because either they're doing it wrong, the technology isn't there yet, or they have resistance from existing energy producers and their friends in government. The last part will go away in one hell of a hurry if the price is right on a new source of energy. Are you saying that renewable energy groups arent worth fleshing out because some of them failed? Because they are going to fail until we get wise to the fact that we need to start working harder to figure it out.

Renewable energy resources aren't in high demand because oil is still relatively cheap. I'm not sure why oil companies aren't leading the way in renewable energy sources, since oil is a finite resource on this planet... a finite supply with growing demand.

Let's talk about the pipeline, though.

I'd like to point out that Obama blocked the pipeline because congress placed an unreasonably short deadline on the decision. It WILL come up again and he may very well decide the complete opposite if given sufficient time to examine the details. You could also say that part of it was a political game and he will approve it at a more advantageous time for him, but you are fooling yourself if you think that that the other side wouldn't do the same.

The thousands of jobs created argument? No way. Maybe hundreds, but not thousands.

Further, why do you think the oil is going to the gulf of mexico and not the large domestic consumers of fuel?

It is because there are giant ports down there. This debate is not about whether we're going to import canadian oil. There are plenty of pipelines for that and we already do. This is whether Canada is going export crude to Asia or South America/Europe.

It has always confused me with the whole 'cheap domestic oil now!' and 'oil self sufficiency' argument is the fact oil is a world commodity, traded on the global stage, often in dollars. Whether we produce it here or not, we are still paying this world price because the opportunity cost of producing here and charging less would be the lost money we could receive on the international markets.

Basically, where some specific oil is produced and where it ends up isn't all that relevant. There is a finite amount, and price is set on an international level.


Who do you think, if you think, are the domestic consumers of raw petroleum are? Refineries. And almost all of them are around the gulf. So the pipeline was to go where the customers are. And a huge construction project could certainly need thousands of workers, although fewer would be needed to operate it once it was done.

I think it is our loss. The Canadians are aware that China needs petroleum, and has the money to pay for it. The Canadian papers seem to think the pipeline will now be going to the west coast of Canada, along with all the refinery jobs we will be losing.


Society in every state is a blessing, but the Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil...
ryan costa
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm

Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but

Postby ryan costa » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:43 pm

building refineries up north is easier than building a 3000 mile pipeline.

if your justification for the pipeline is refining it in houston and exporting it to china....it would be easier to just export canadian, californian, and mexican oil to China. and more profitable for Canada to build its own refineries and export it to china. they would then build more value added industry. it would also, ultimately, be more profitable for Canada to build its own refineries and export the products to the U.S.

the U.S. imports somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of our oil. I can't keep track of the changes. if your justification for the pipeline shipping it 3000 miles southeast just so we can then export it 3000 miles back and then across the pacific ocean...where do we import the 50 to 70 percent of our oil from?


As it is, the U.S., despite importing a majority of its oil, still ends up exporting gasoline when prices spike and the news reports on ever cent the price of gasoline goes up.

a pipeline from western Canada to the texas gulf coast is an enormous logistical risk, in terms of the physical and political security of the pipeline. we'd end up hiring 20,000 TSA guys to patrol it. Terrorists don't like attacking the pipelines in Alaska: it is too cold, and it is hard to find a hotel nearby.

As it is, the median and average intelligence of adults in Canada is higher than in the U.S., and they are a democracy. As the pollution and spillover costs of tar sand extraction increase, they will vote for stricter pollution control measures. this will be expensive, and add to the cost of any oil the U.S. wishes to import.


"shall we have peace" - Henry Charles Carey

Return to “Global Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests