Biden cancels oil pipeline - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15152451
AFAIK wrote:I hope it's well insulated. Sheet metal is a popular building material in poor countries and is notorious for being incredibly hot it the sun and incredibly loud in the rain.


We're talking about America dude. I know what you are talking about, as those cheap metal roofs are also common back in the DR.

These metal roofs are much more modern than that. They are properly insulated, and actually insulate better than regular shingle roofs. They last longer than traditional shingles too. Overall better, except, more expensive.
Last edited by Rancid on 23 Jan 2021 21:08, edited 1 time in total.
#15152469
late wrote:You still need a way to get there.

The first step is a Carbon Tax, anything else is going to be a facade.

Closing coal power plants and banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars is more effective than making those things more expensive.
#15152472
AFAIK wrote:
Closing coal power plants and banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars is more effective than making those things more expensive.



You have 3 problems.

The first is that doing this abruptly would be economically disruptive. The second is you still have a lot of other things to ban. You are also going to lose some of those political fights.

You can cover a lot more ground with minimal disruption with an incrementing Carbon Tax.
#15152487
@Rancid
These metal roofs are much more modern than that. They are properly insulated, and actually insulate better than regular shingle roofs. They last longer than traditional shingles too. Overall better, except, more expensive.


We have two verandas that we are considering redoing in metal. Lot of advantages to metal roofing.
#15152490
If we assume that Biden is in the pocket of the oil companies, which seems like a logical assumption, then we can assume that this cancellation was done with the knowledge and approval of US petroleum companies.

This gives me the impression that US petroleum companies see the writing on the wall and want to shut Alberta out of the international oil market, in order to keep more market share of the ever dwindling market.

————————

I bet being a skilled roofer with a specialty in metal roofing would be a good job for the next little while,
#15152491
If we assume that Biden is in the pocket of the oil companies, which seems like a logical assumption, then we can assume that this cancellation was done with the knowledge and approval of US petroleum companies.

This gives me the impression that US petroleum companies see the writing on the wall and want to shut Alberta out of the international oil market, in order to keep more market share of the ever dwindling market.


I don't know if he is or not. It occurs to me that this may well be an environmental issue.
#15152492
Pants-of-dog wrote:If we assume that Biden is in the pocket of the oil companies, which seems like a logical assumption, then we can assume that this cancellation was done with the knowledge and approval of US petroleum companies.

This gives me the impression that US petroleum companies see the writing on the wall and want to shut Alberta out of the international oil market, in order to keep more market share of the ever dwindling market.

————————

I bet being a skilled roofer with a specialty in metal roofing would be a good job for the next little while,

You mean another violation of market economy by government. Quite possible considering that he is in politics for 50 years. He is so corrupt.
#15152499
AFAIK wrote:Transporting oil by road and rail is more labour intensive than using pipelines and supports additional jobs in hospitality when truckers eat, drink and sleep en route.

Joe just saved your job.

It's also far more polluting to transport oil by road or rail.

One can make the argument that stopping oil sands pipelines helps CO2 emissions, but when we figure they're just going to transport the oil with these other less efficient and dirtier methods it becomes more complicated. Virtually everyone also still drives gas/diesel powered vehicles with or without Keystone. So honestly I don't know what to think about Keystone.

The best this will do is make the Alberta oil sands a bit less profitable and a bit slower to get oil to market but also increase GHG output of that oil getting to market. I'd like to know if canceling Keystone is actually a net drop in GHG or an increase. Given that less bitumen will be mined overall if less is going to market i'd guess it's a net drop in GHG but that's just a guess. Facts get lost in all the politics of it all.
#15152500
Pants-of-dog wrote:If we assume that Biden is in the pocket of the oil companies, which seems like a logical assumption, then we can assume that this cancellation was done with the knowledge and approval of US petroleum companies.

This gives me the impression that US petroleum companies see the writing on the wall and want to shut Alberta out of the international oil market, in order to keep more market share of the ever dwindling market.

Totally possible. Who knows with these things, it's all politics behind the scenes. I would assume US oil refineries also lose money if they're not refining this oil and then selling it to market.
#15152503
AFAIK wrote:Closing coal power plants and banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars is more effective than making those things more expensive.

It's complicated. If you ban fossil fuel vehicles you need to have EVs to replace them. There's not yet many on the market, and the ones that are well they're like twice the price of the gas alternatives, so either way costs for people and business will go up at least in the short term. Putting a price on carbon provides disincentive to use it but still leaves the option on the table if EVs aren't yet suitable.

Either way EVs also make the the cost of business and goods more expensive as of now given the cost of the technology, which if you're a business in ie: California you can be costed out of the US & international market, and many people and businesses are already leaving California in droves due to high taxes. At some point as EV tech gets better and more people use it the costs will go down but it will take years. Basically either way we're effed. Capitalism is a race to the bottom.
#15152504
An issue like this is so complicated with so many variables that I think the vast majority of people are talking out their butts and have no idea what they're talking about. Including me.
#15152515
Unthinking Majority wrote:It's also far more polluting to transport oil by road or rail.

One can make the argument that stopping oil sands pipelines helps CO2 emissions, but when we figure they're just going to transport the oil with these other less efficient and dirtier methods it becomes more complicated. Virtually everyone also still drives gas/diesel powered vehicles with or without Keystone. So honestly I don't know what to think about Keystone.

The best this will do is make the Alberta oil sands a bit less profitable and a bit slower to get oil to market but also increase GHG output of that oil getting to market. I'd like to know if canceling Keystone is actually a net drop in GHG or an increase. Given that less bitumen will be mined overall if less is going to market i'd guess it's a net drop in GHG but that's just a guess. Facts get lost in all the politics of it all.


The cost to make a barrel of Alberta oil is already pretty high in comparison to other barrels. If you now add the price to drive it to a port, that may make the price of the barrel so high that it is basically unsellable.

At that point, investors are not going to pay to extract or drive it.
#15152528
Pants-of-dog wrote:The cost to make a barrel of Alberta oil is already pretty high in comparison to other barrels. If you now add the price to drive it to a port, that may make the price of the barrel so high that it is basically unsellable.

At that point, investors are not going to pay to extract or drive it.

That's basically the situation now. They aren't tearing down pipelines they're just trying to build new ones to make more money. The pipelines will make the oil more profitable since they'll be able to transport more of it faster.

The canceling of pipelines, indigenous land disputes, and the drop in the global price of oil hasn't been kind to the those businesses.
#15152531
Unthinking Majority wrote:An issue like this is so complicated with so many variables that I think the vast majority of people are talking out their butts and have no idea what they're talking about. Including me.


I disagree. We are all more than qualified.
#15152536
Rancid wrote:I disagree. We are all more than qualified.

Where did you get your degrees in energy infrastructure, climatology, and economics?

Nobody in here knows dick-all what they're talking about.
#15152559
@Unthinking Majority

Dude. When you talk to Rancid,, do you even know who you are talking to? :eek:
#15152563
Drlee wrote:@Unthinking Majority

Dude. When you talk to Rancid,, do you even know who you are talking to? :eek:

This is an anonymous forum. Everyone here to me is some dude on the internet.
#15158123
Istanbuller wrote:Renewable energy has never been an alternative to oil and gas. It is not even an option. Renewable energy complexes are too costly to build.


What cost data do you base this on? The latest (2021) EIA Annual Energy Outlook cost estimates for new generation sources paint a different story. See chart on page 7. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf

I already did, I do not want to repeat my self. G[…]

I think that the USA had to drop nukes onto Japan[…]

Everything is fragile

I watched the first 2 episodes last night. It's[…]

So my girlfriend got the disease and I'm waiting f[…]