Yeah, if Obama's not careful, he might not get the 2016 Democratic nomination.
Yeah, if Obama's not careful, he might not get the 2016 Democratic nomination.
tar oil requires so much energy to get it out and flowing that the Japs are proposing to build a nuclear plant up just for tar sands extraction.
Is there any net energy gain from tar sands after the energy for extraction, transport, and refining are counted? and the flow rate is economical?
That's a moving target as pricing and availability continues to be volatile. Right now, it's close to a push and there is some retraction in that market.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...669452700.html
meaningful information as a product of a BD TB interaction is always plus.
It's fools gold, tbh.
I just cant wait until TB posts a picture and then we see that his photobucket account is "photobucket.com/e632/thegreatmother ingboutons/js893jlkjsi3lr.jpg"
Guess which folder I use for boutons posts.
touche'
You opened a new photobucket account very quickly.
Yay! we are selling our domestic supplies to foreign countries so the current generation in control can make money and the generations to come are going to have to pay more.
I am so tired of the boomers. No vision or concern beyond the immediate selfish desire.
When did we annex Canada?
BTW, Fuzzy, that's a gross over simplification worthy of boutons.
There are two opposing straw camps with the same output.
Camp Boomer Strawman: Let's pull it all outta the ground now and make bank. Screw the children.
Camp Greenie Strawman: We should be completely independent of Carbon fuel sources in 30 years. Think of the children.
Outcome: Children gets no oils.
A viable energy source emerges in either scenario. Greed pushes camp 1. Stewardship pushes camp 2.
Tar oil crap is going to Port Arthur untaxed free enterprise zone and then exported to central/south America.
Americans lose ALL eminent domain land grabs, accept all the risk and cleanup of spills (Yellowstone river STILL ain't clean), suck in all the pollution from refining (and refinery explosions), and see none of the tar products and NO reduction in fuel prices.
Americans grab a fair number of jobs and local taxes off of the pipeline tho.
The eminent domain grab is an ender for me, personally. I support the pipeline, but I do not support using ED for a purpose that is clearly not a public interest project.
Hey XL, you want a pipeline? Better pile up some sheckles.
the ED justification is that the pipeline is a "common carrier", which is somehow construed as "for the common good", when in fact only the corporations and their investors benefit.
Agreed. It just doesn't fit the definition of common good.
Sure it's a simplification but the net result is the same. It is a macro issue with a tremendous amount of what is NA supply being moved south and out. Increase production and import capacity of 'local' oil that would otherwise be primarily used for 'local' use. One of the reason for the current low oil prices is because of the glut that hits the midwest because the pipeline doesn't go south to gulf refineries en masse.
What do you think is going to happen when the oil is able to hit the gulf refineries and then loaded onto tankers to ship to Europe for over twice the price that they get here? We are going to see gas prices rise. The only people that this helps are 10k or so oilco workers, oilco elites --which we both know are neither 'US' or 'Canadian' but instead world wide-- as well as European consumers. I mean I guess we are helping our NATO allies and they are hurting but for the American consumer we get to see price rises. The oil is already here and the only place it can go from the coast is out.
I don't know what boutox's stance is nor do I really care but I absolutely loathe this. There is some 'good' here but it is hardly for the common man.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)