TED Conversations

george lockwood

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Keystone Pipeline - Good idea or bad idea

This has become very controversal I was reading Canada doesn't want it. Do we really want it now? Why not build more Nukes and protect our naval oil reserves and oil on government land and slow oil sand development too.

0
Share:
progress indicator

  • george lockwood 20+

    • 0
    Feb 24 2013: Outstanding Ed I am beginning to understand this better. Remember you Canadians do not have something like Citizens United, a U.S. Supreme Court case to contend with in political campaigns. Corporations are not really people though Sen. Roscoe Conkling lied to the Supreme Court about that when he was later a railroad lawyer. Okay it is more complicated than what I wrote.

    • Ed Schulte 50+

      • 0
      Feb 25 2013: It does bother me that some of the Canadian Companies doing this kind of work south of the line do not abide by the same stds they have to here in Canada. Having seen some reports and the the excuses such as "we can't get good inspectors" doesn't cut it so in that respect ....complicated or not std must be maintained no matter where.

  • george lockwood 20+

    • 0
    Feb 24 2013: Ed - I remember reading that in Scientific American or something aqbout ethonol. Even though we are having real economic problems - It seems some people always pull something like that in the
    USA. So much for some alleged conservatives.

    • Ed Schulte 50+

      • +1
      Feb 24 2013: George

      I don't know who/what you were referring in your original comment about "Canada doesn't want it" so I will point out that yes ...there are those of us who would prefer that all the refining of Bitumen be done here and not shipped out ...because there are many valuable by-products not found in "typical" crude oil...the second aspect of that feeling is that Canada has to develop better trade with asia and reduce US trade ..that so called "Free trade agreement" has been nothing but a joke....thirdly the synthetic oil now sent south is sold for way below market valve.

      That is one side

      The other side is the "environmental" supported by Serra Club and Oceans type organization mentality who get their $$$$ from the Coal burning guys. O yes we have lots of those here too!! There was a TED taker on about 8 months ago ...a pro-Photographer from Victoria B.C. ...out to lunch all the away!!!

      Here is a link you may want to read ....it give a fairly good and honest overview of what the Canadian industry is maintaining Standards wise...but from my perspective what Gary Doer doesn't touch on is the fact that our carbon tax method promotes development of co2 capture and improved operations efficiency all around. Something few others are doing. To bad the Canadian Environmentalists (with the exception of Green Peace) are are not clueing into that fact.

      http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-acted-climate-keystone-waits-envoy-211542259--finance.html

      But all that said ..as one Canadian to one American...It amazes me that this pipeline subject gets so much attention when your REAL BIG problem right NOW is something much more basic ...Water.

  • Ed Schulte 50+

    • +1
    Feb 23 2013: george

    if you are concentrating only on the pipeline and not the overall ...that you might want to read and know the contents here as well

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/amid-pipeline-debate-south-leg-of-keystone-xl-is-halfway-done/article9005708/

  • Ed Schulte 50+

    • +2
    Feb 22 2013: I rcommend that you read

    2013 NATURE VIL 493 31 January 2013

    This is the first "Politically" acceptable publication which gives a clear / honest overview.

    http://www.nature.com/news/change-for-good-1.12312

    If you are a supporter of the Coal - fired power plants and their arsnic emmisions you would like what NATURE has to say.

    • george lockwood 20+

      • 0
      Feb 23 2013: Thanks Ed That's what we all are looking for I hope - A really credible scientific explanation. I'm sure the economist and others have stuff too.

      • Ed Schulte 50+

        • 0
        Feb 23 2013: george

        I don't want to get into fray of "company's taking pry" etc ..I live and work in and around this topic and I find it outstanding sad how little the common public in North America know .actually know ...about the services they take for granted what impact environmentally and economically .

        I originated in Vancouver B.C. yes the home of green peace and am not surprised that the article say that they are now not so opposed ....they go with who ever gives them $$$$ and will say what ever it takes to get that $$$

        The article explains very little...it is unique in that it doesn't cover a broad spectrum of the subject ...it doesn't say anything about the extraction ....which on all new Bitumen ( not oil ) sands extraction is done by SAD ( steam assisted drainage) and the Canadian Government laws are among the highest in bringing in CO2 capture ...all operations are bringing this on line ....The C02 can be injected in SAD to improve efficiency .

        I must sound like some kind of sale person but I am not ...I am about to use my monthly bus pass to visit the local farmers market ....just like any "good" and aware community member ...

        .but I am also smiling because I just help complete a project at a local refinery ...an off-loading facility to unload Ethanol from the USA i...so the Ethanol can be added to Canadian produced diesel in order to meet USA EPA standards. Thats right we have to buy and add US methanol ( which thats more energy to produce then it yields ) add the cost of shipping it here ....add and therefore reduces the BTU's in the ordinary fuel so that truck and cars have to burn more fuel to get up the hill!!! All that so we Canadians ( living in a vase geographic area that sucks up way more CO2 then we produce) meet EPA standards and keep Environmentalists happy!!

        Now how is that for doing the environment good!!

        i left that article because .if you follow the related links...it will lead to many many more it is not just about the $$$" articles

  • Comment deleted

    • Teresa Kesterson

      • +2
      Feb 22 2013: That's precisely what I am saying. It's all about the money. I really believe the politicians here are looking for ANYTHING to make themselves look good and the Canadian company is looking for the easiest way and the easiest "prey". The politicians just want to say I endorsed the pipeline and it got us jobs..and sometimes it takes a bigger person to take the high road. Your are absolutely right I did not vote for it because of XYZ and my opponent is right but I weighed the cost of the now to our children's future. We are becoming such a selfish society we are not even thinking of our legacy to the future.

      • george lockwood 20+

        • 0
        Feb 23 2013: Teresa -people get so upset, but all politicians live in the World of "Citizens United" and incredible expensive campaigns. I don't trust any of them completely - I only trust the science.

  • Teresa Kesterson

    • +1
    Feb 22 2013: I can see no good coming out of it and it angers me Canadians don't want it in their backyard but oh say let's send it through the United States. They keep saying more jobs but I would genuinely like to see accurate numbers. My understanding is the REAL paying jobs come with the building of the line, then once it's built it's a matter of monitoring and the Canadian company will keep all those jobs in Canada. Then the muck is shipped to China and refined, would the US get a better deal than the rest of world because we allow it come through our country, probably not. The most terrifying part of this is this muck is sent through steam pressured lines and you know as well as I do it's not a matter of if something will happen it's a matter of when. And the devastation it will cause isn't even estimated. Are they going to earthquake proof the supports, strap for tornados, and it's appearance. I just don't see the benefits of doing this deal. Right now they are shutting down oil refineries I really believe in this situation we should let Canada figure out things on their own.

    • Greg McEachern

      • +1
      Feb 22 2013: To be realistic I think there is good AND bad about pipelines in anyones country. I think the reason it's going to Houston and north eastern US is because of the refineries there. They don't refine it for free. There's money there. The obvious negative is the potential for a spill. Nobody wants that. I don't think they are transporting 'muck' though. It's oil product that has to be refined. The product that is going to be piped to BC is raw and headed to China. I don't see the connect that you should be angry at enviromentalists in a different country that have the same concerns as you. They are also concerned about spills just like you. Sounds like they are your friend. You make some good points about earthquakes and tornadoes. That could prove disasterous for sure. I think you and I will find that we will have no influence on whether or not the pipelines will go through. It's bigger than us. I'm on your side by the way. We are all fruit flies in a jar.
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Feb 21 2013: this is the first time i see the word nuke capitalized

  • Greg McEachern

    • +1
    Feb 21 2013: It depends on who you are. Lots of Albertans want the pipeline I would assume. It would mean jobs for pipeline builders and oil sands workers. That means money. Our Prime Minister and his government is conservative currently. The conservative agenda is economics. The Prime minister came from Alberta at one time so he is showing loyalty to Alberta oil industry. Like most things it's always good to have balance. The province west of Alberta is British Columbia. They lean to the left politically. They don't want a pipeline to go to their coastline because of environmental concerns. Large oil tankers would be navigating through treacherous waterways that are pristine now. Economically there isn't much advantage for them to host a pipeline and port for the oil. I'm pretty sure they will build another pipeline in an easterly direction to eventually enter north-eastern US to refineries there. There was also talk about a pipeline to go north into the arctic and to a port to be exported probably to China. It depends on who you ask as to who wants these pipelines. It's about money and environment, but the current canadian government is all about industry and not so much about the environment.

    • Ed Schulte 50+

      • 0
      Feb 25 2013: lets not ignore the fact that oil is shipped out of the harbours of Vancouver ...at this moment ( has been so for a long time) and there are no protesters standing and protesting ...and no environmental disasters .....the pipeline to "the Arctic" is in fact ...the one proposal to convert the oil CANOIL ( second world war ) pipeline over to tie to the Alaskan Pipeline an load and the existing Valdez terminal.....this is attractive because it is a shorter delivery to the Asian customers .....the newest proposal is similar ....construct a twin rail line to the same...this one is is best from the point that a lot most trade will be wit asia ...not only with oil but the fabrication of the refining equipment will come from asia ...this includes mining of minerals /// natural gas ,,,etc etc ....
Showing all 19 comments