There is oil there, they are going to get it out, they are going top refine it. XL or not it is going to burn up somewhere in the world and add emissions so really shouldn't be part of the discussion. Do you think the oil companies are going to say, well the pipeline is dead so just leave the oil there? In fact if the pipeline did not get built and they had to transport by train or tanker truck wouldn't that add to the 17%? That mode of transport would certainly add more carbon emission than a pipeline.
Basically the environmentalists say: no tars sands oil. And the U.S. shouldn't allow it to cross our borders. Or to promote or help it with an 8 billion dollar pipeline. There's cleaner ways of getting oil and energy. I think this is the cruxt of the opposition. Other sources of energy create jobs, too. Obama hasn't ruled out approving the KXL. He said he'd make a final decision on it during his last year and a half in office. Of course if a Repub wins the election it's a done deal his first day in office.
Environmentalists are going with an almost exact replay of the tactics they used with the Trans-Alaskan pipeline. Guess how many of the dire predictions of climate disaster took place with the building of that pipeline? Very little negative environmental impact came about from the pipeline and even more technological advances would be implemented with this new pipeline. When other types of alternative energy can be produced at least near as efficiently as oil then you can discuss using one of them as a replacement to create jobs in the energy sector. I am all for alternative energy but they need to refine the technology. I wanted to put solar panels on my property to replace the electricity I currently buy, even after tax credits it would take me 17 years to break even. That is not even considering upkeep and I don't even use a lot of electricity. Try some critical thinking for a change but be forewarned it might mean you would disagree with something your party told you to think.
From what I've seen, the price of oil has to be $95 to $100 a barrel for tar sands oil extraction to be even feasible... No way companies are going to keep investing if oil isn't going to sustain the $100 a price range. If oil can get back to at least $65, shale production will keep pumping as its cost per barrel is at about $60-$65 for the big players. Plus Iran is about to start getting its oil on the world market and more efficient cars getting on the road should keep prices way below the $100 needed for the tar sands. I think the pipeline/tar sands talk is won't even be relevant for the distant future.
I read another article that said current producers needed prices to stay at $65-$75 to make it feasible and $85 as a break even on new fields. Of course oil producers have been known to take a hit for a while if need be, demand for use of the pipeline is said to be high and they wouldn't want to lose their spot. Onearth.org had the break even at $100 but they were calculating it with rail transport, pipeline transport is much cheaper so I guess that is where the difference comes in.
Isn't the price of the pipeline $8-10 billion. It'll be paid by TransCanada and shippers. Here is a Bloomberg article about it, but no exact breakdown on who is paying for it just a general one http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-keystone-xl-project-costs-rise-to-8-billion. You would think if they're going to commit that kind of money they are certain it'll bring in a windfall. Because the predictions are for 3 times oil production (from Canada) by the 2030's. Which of course if tar sands means a lot more pollution and carbon emissions.
So capitalism is bad? Of course they ran the numbers to make sure it was going to make them money, what smart business wouldn't? What is the point of your post?
Where did I ever say capitalism is bad. I made a point (not even a lefty one) that TransCanada wouldn't spend 8 bil if they didn't think it would generate a huge long term profit. Since the discussion was about the price of oil and profitability for the XL.
So then you were just making comments that were already known to everyone, a 2100 mile pipeline costs a lot and the company that builds it expects to make a profit. Based on your prior comments it was not too much of a reach to think you have a problem with companies making money.
You guys were questioning the feasibility of the KXL if the price of oil wasn't high enough to sustain the expenses. I just said that they wouldn't be building it if long term it was unsustainable. That's it!
As for my own personal philosophy. I'm not a fan of the Koch Bros and don't like what they stand for. Here is a 2011 Reuters article about them and the KXL. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210 I don't consider this true entrepreneurship and honest capitalism at work. This is a long term project to hugely increase the amount of tars sands oil pumped and would increase carbon emissions which are huge. What I'm saying is: they shouldn't be pumping this dirty oil. They (the Kochs), of course finance many of the climate change deniers. No surprise there since they make billions off of it. This isn't the type of long term planning I think we need.
