Register (Real Name Required)    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » General Discussions » Global Discussion




Post new topic Reply to topic   [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:58 pm
Posts: 171
Location: earth
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...

_________________
"beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - ben franklin

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:58 pm
Posts: 171
Location: earth
*crickets*

_________________
"beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - ben franklin

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am
Posts: 494
kate e parker wrote:
*crickets*



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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:58 pm
Posts: 171
Location: earth
Valerie Molinski wrote:
It didn't appear to me that you were looking for a discussion here.


the internet gods have spoken

_________________
"beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - ben franklin

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am
Posts: 494
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:58 pm
Posts: 171
Location: earth
Quote:
You're giving yourself too much credit, I think.


you think therefore you are.

_________________
"beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - ben franklin

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
Posts: 1838
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.

_________________
This Henry Charles Carey guy is good at Economics.

"Good luck with what you're doin'".--Ramses Luther Smuckles.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am
Posts: 494
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 7429
Location: Lakewood
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
Posts: 3242
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/keystonexl/

nothing to see here...Please move along.. Obama Clean Tech Money Goes to Political Cronies.. more hope and change..

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... aspx#page1


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:56 am
Posts: 431
Location: Lakewood
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...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To the pipeline Obama says no but
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
Posts: 1838
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.

_________________
This Henry Charles Carey guy is good at Economics.

"Good luck with what you're doin'".--Ramses Luther Smuckles.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

Board index » General Discussions » Global Discussion


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: