cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:41 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:32 am
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:10 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:57 am
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:51 am
Did you read the freaking link? The Keystone XL pipeline that POTUS Biden chitcanned has not been built yet. If you can explain to me how a pipeline that has not been built can leak oil there jaundice boy I'm all ears. Maybe you need to take your own advice and edumacate yourself. Did you soak up too much sun when you were playing golf?
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
The Keystone pipeline is another damn pipeline. Wear a boonie cap the next time you expose yourself to excessive sunlight.
Yup, the part not built hasn't leaked, OBVIOUSLY, but the pipeline they are being to asked to extend has quite a lot of spills. The extension would be reasonably expected to perform as the rest...with spills.
So, the question has to be based on cost/benefit with spills factored into 'costs'.
So you don't think our Union welders are good enough to weld together 2 pieces of pipe? Everything our country does MD involves risk. My old man had a saying he used often... Chit or get off the pot. I don't give a flying fig what ultimately happens with the Keystone XL pipeline. Build it, don't build it but for the love of Pete don't keep changing your mind about it every 4 years. Anywhoo the chicoms will be glad to have the oil. If it leaks all over the place loading their tankers at the terminal not our problem is it!
Agreed, it's a cost/benefit analysis. Would it lower our US consumer's energy costs? I don't think so, our prices are impacted by world market. Would it leak on the US lands that would need to be appropriated for its construction? Yup.
So, not much, if any, benefit unless one thinks we need this supply for strategic purposes long term...which I don't. But someone could make the opposite argument.
It gets bounced back and forth because there are people who lobby for the pipeline who stand to make a lot of money personally and they grease palms quite well and the other side lobbies because of environmental and ideological (climate) reasons. Same greasing other way. No surprises there.
My gripe is either put the damn thing to bed forever or build it. It is asinine to keep bringing it back from the dead every 4 years. I disagree with you 100% on your reasoning, we can build freaking pipelines with minimal risk. Whether we really need the oil, that is way out of my wheelhouse. My guess is it is better to have the oil in our country than to have to import it down the road. You do know that importing it also comes with the risk of oil tankers leaking the crude oil as well? Every choice our leaders make involves a risk.
At the risk of being accused as too 'woke', I think the reasoning is that in the long term the oil will be way less strategically important and that we have more than ample supplies in the ground here.
And, as the supply from those Canadian supplies will be otherwise on the market, not piping to the US won't negatively impact world supply or prices.
So, what's the big benefit? other than for the specific companies involved? A few construction jobs? Would better bridges be a better use of those welders? Anyway, that's the logic.
And yeah, there would be spills, no pipeline is perfect...and those where those spills would happen do actually care about that, are directly impacted...so...