[Scott Yee]

The Yes side, says it will create thousands upon thousands of jobs. The Yes side is made up of Conservatives; those who feel this will be good for the economy, and of course, those who will personally benefit from it.

The No side, says most of the jobs created, will be indirect jobs, and most of the direct jobs created, will only end up being short term. There are also rumors of Alberta's crude oil being exported to Europe and Latin America. Environmentalists and concerned citizens make up this side.

So if you are not already politically predisposed, (Conservative or Environmentalist) how do you know which side is telling the truth? Both sides use spin, and will fudge the numbers in their favour.

Then of course, there's the media. They too, cannot always be trusted to give the facts. So you cannot just read the New York Times being against it, and take their word for it.

I am against the expansion of the Keystone pipeline for these reasons:

1) Alberta's boreal forest and wetlands are home to a diverse range of animals, including lynx, caribou and grizzly bears, and serve as critical breeding grounds for many North American songbirds and waterfowl. Which you can kiss goodbye, if this (most likely) project happens.

2) The existing Keystone pipeline, already has had a leak. The XL pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone. There have also been other pipeline leaks in the U.S., and then there's BP's wonderful Ocean spill. So not only do we have to worry about man-made leaks, but earthquakes as well.

3) Extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does.

4) The pipeline would cross part of Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) also opposes this.

5) Corruption. Document filed with Canada's Energy Board appears to cast doubt on claims by Koch Industries that it has no interest in the controversial pipeline. And Emails uncovered by Friends of the Earth, reveal State Department employees in a cozy relationship with Paul Elliot, a leader on Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign turned head lobbyist for Keystone XL – offering personal favors, praise, advice, and generally cheerleading the project while it was under review.

6) I do not trust greedy people. Big Oil and their minions in the past, have a proven track record of bull-****.

So taking all that into account, is the reason why I oppose this project. It is now up to President Obama to stop this, but he won't, unless the White House is over-whelmed on November the 6th.

[bootlegga]

Scott Yee Scott Yee:

The Yes side, says it will create thousands upon thousands of jobs. The Yes side is made up of Conservatives; those who feel this will be good for the economy, and of course, those who will personally benefit from it.

The No side, says most of the jobs created, will be indirect jobs, and most of the direct jobs created, will only end up being short term. There are also rumors of Alberta's crude oil being exported to Europe and Latin America. Environmentalists and concerned citizens make up this side.

So if you are not already politically predisposed, (Conservative or Environmentalist) how do you know which side is telling the truth? Both sides use spin, and will fudge the numbers in their favour.

Then of course, there's the media. They too, cannot always be trusted to give the facts. So you cannot just read the New York Times being against it, and take their word for it.

I am against the expansion of the Keystone pipeline for these reasons:

1) Alberta's boreal forest and wetlands are home to a diverse range of animals, including lynx, caribou and grizzly bears, and serve as critical breeding grounds for many North American songbirds and waterfowl. Which you can kiss goodbye, if this (most likely) project happens.

2) The existing Keystone pipeline, already has had a leak. The XL pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone. There have also been other pipeline leaks in the U.S., and then there's BP's wonderful Ocean spill. So not only do we have to worry about man-made leaks, but earthquakes as well.

3) Extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does.

4) The pipeline would cross part of Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) also opposes this.

5) Corruption. Document filed with Canada's Energy Board appears to cast doubt on claims by Koch Industries that it has no interest in the controversial pipeline. And Emails uncovered by Friends of the Earth, reveal State Department employees in a cozy relationship with Paul Elliot, a leader on Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign turned head lobbyist for Keystone XL – offering personal favors, praise, advice, and generally cheerleading the project while it was under review.

6) I do not trust greedy people. Big Oil and their minions in the past, have a proven track record of bull-****.

So taking all that into account, is the reason why I oppose this project. It is now up to President Obama to stop this, but he won't, unless the White House is over-whelmed on November the 6th.

I voted yes, but I have to admit I'm tettering on undecided - not for any of the asinine reasons you gave, but because I think we should be upgrading the bitumen here, not exporting it (and the jobs that go with it) to the US Gulf Coast.

In regards to your rationale;

1) Look up SAGD mining. There is no open pit mining like environmentalists like to rail on about - they inject steam into the soil hundreds of feet below the surface and it doesn't disturb the surface at all.

2) Of course pipelines leak - entropy is the nature of the universe. However, our society runs on oil and pipelines provide the safest method of transporting it across the continent.

3)Of course extraction of oil from the oil sands takes more energy than it does from conventional sources. In Saudi Arabia, you can just stick a drill in the desert and it flows freely. Bitumen is oil mixed with soil, so it needs to be heated to separate the two.

In an ideal world, we'd only use conventional oil (or maybe fusion power), but this isn't an ideal world and unfortunately, most of it is buried under a lot of unfriendly countries that like to brutalize everyone who doesn't believe what they do.

4) So what - the Ogalla aquifer is hundreds of feet below ground and even if the pipeline leaks, the likelihood of oil seeping that far through the earth to contaminate the aquifer are slim at best.

5) WHAT! People doing things that are in their own best interest! Say it isn't so...the 'corruption' that occurs here in North America pales to the corruption that happens in most major oil producing countries. The far lesser of two evils IMO.

6) Great - you don't trust greedy people - are you one? Have you taken a vow of poverty, or are you constantly striving to make more money in your career too? I'm betting the latter - because it's basic human nature. And quite frankly, I don't trust environmentalists who tell us we need to stop using oil without ever providing a real world solution to replace the energy system we use to run our society.

[Alta_redneck]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I think we should be upgrading the bitumen here, not exporting it (and the jobs that go with it) to the US Gulf Coast.

Who's going to pay for that.

We're going to spend $Billions on new powrerlines so the power generators can make $Millions selling power to the US. Should we give the oil companies the same sweet deal so a few can have a job?

If there was money to be made, I'm sure the oil companies would be building these themselves.

Oh, and I didn't waste my time voting.

[peck420]

bootlegga,

Alberta's Industrial Heartland Association started pushing to get 4 new upgraders built in Fort Saskatchewan last year.

One has been given approval, but construction doesn't start until 2012. I'm not sure what the status is on the other 3.

[peck420]

Alta_redneck,

There is vast amounts of money to be made in the value added end of oil. Most of it is currently being made south of the border.

Having our own upgraders and refineries would allow us to keep the value added benefits here in Canada.

[stokes]

I voted no because I want the jobs to stay in Canada. I admittedly dont know a lot about the oil sands, but i think we would be better served building refineries in Canada and then building a pipeline to the west coast for export.

[herbie]

Build it but ship refine it here and ship gasoline instead of crude oil.
Surprised this isn't a big issue, it's Alberta's version of "raw log exports".

[Lemmy]

peck420 peck420:

Alta_redneck,

There is vast amounts of money to be made in the value added end of oil. Most of it is currently being made south of the border.

Having our own upgraders and refineries would allow us to keep the value added benefits here in Canada.

Why would we invest billions of dollars into processing a sunset product? Better to put those dollars into R & D, developing replacement technologies for the post-oil period.

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga,

Alberta's Industrial Heartland Association started pushing to get 4 new upgraders built in Fort Saskatchewan last year.

One has been given approval, but construction doesn't start until 2012. I'm not sure what the status is on the other 3.

I'm aware of that - but we should be upgrading most, if not all, of the bitumen we extract from the oil sands (I think Stelmach set a goal of 50% of bitumen to be upgraded).

Canada has spent its entire existence exporting raw materials and then paying for manufactured products - it's time to end that cycle.

[SprCForr]

I agree to a certain extent. Build enough refinery capapbility to address our concerns, ship the remaining crude south. Until we get the refinery capacity up to speed, make a sweetheart deal with whoever wants to refine our shit. Bottomline is, as Lemmy said, we need more dollars into replacement technology because wind and solar isn't anywhere near up to scratch.

[bootlegga]

Lemmy Lemmy:

peck420 peck420:

Alta_redneck,

There is vast amounts of money to be made in the value added end of oil. Most of it is currently being made south of the border.

Having our own upgraders and refineries would allow us to keep the value added benefits here in Canada.

Why would we invest billions of dollars into processing a sunset product? Better to put those dollars into R & D, developing replacement technologies for the post-oil period.

Sorry, but that's going to happen in Alberta - although I would love to see it.

Oil may be a sunset product elsewhere, but there's at least another 100 years of production sitting in the oil sands (and as long as the market demands oil), so this issue will be around for a while.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga,

Alberta's Industrial Heartland Association started pushing to get 4 new upgraders built in Fort Saskatchewan last year.

One has been given approval, but construction doesn't start until 2012. I'm not sure what the status is on the other 3.

I'm aware of that - but we should be upgrading most, if not all, of the bitumen we extract from the oil sands (I think Stelmach set a goal of 50% of bitumen to be upgraded).

Canada has spent its entire existence exporting raw materials and then paying for manufactured products - it's time to end that cycle.

I agree with that. We need the jobs more than we need the increased imports. The jobs and export products from petrolium upgrading have to be worth it. Otherwise, why would they be reviviing mothballed refinieries in the US south to upgrade our oil with?

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but that's going to happen in Alberta - although I would love to see it.

Oil may be a sunset product elsewhere, but there's at least another 100 years of production sitting in the oil sands (and as long as the market demands oil), so this issue will be around for a while.

Well, I know my opinion on the oil sands isn't a popular one, especially compared to Albertans, but my response would be leave "Leave that 100 years of production right where it is and move on to cleaner, sustainable energy."

[peck420]

Lemmy,

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/About_Us/1617.asp

We get more royalty money to spend elsewhere, like in green technology, from refining and upgrading here.

Hopefully, our gove will continue to heavily invest in the Nanotech centres at U of A, U of C, and the foundries in Leduc.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but that's going to happen in Alberta - although I would love to see it.

Oil may be a sunset product elsewhere, but there's at least another 100 years of production sitting in the oil sands (and as long as the market demands oil), so this issue will be around for a while.

Well, I know my opinion on the oil sands isn't a popular one, especially compared to Albertans, but my response would be leave "Leave that 100 years of production right where it is and move on to cleaner, sustainable energy."

It's a nice thought, but our government isn't allowed an alternate energy strategy of it's own.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le2097575/

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=732