Quote:
Originally Posted by nonniey
There still is no defending the Keystone pipeline decision. That was straight on virtue signaling that actually hurt the environment (That dirty-crude will now primarily be exported and refined to dirtier refineries in China and to a lesser extent transported in more polluting trains (Much more damaging than pipelines) to the US).
|
Idk .. importing sand oil from Canada? Do we have a need for more oil and oil sources? Seems like the only people who would benefit are the Oil Companies. If oil was some scarce needed commodity, itd be a no brainer.
We are already extracting oil out of all types of things .. and it does cause greater environmental waste. How does it help us? it creates some temporary jobs .. at the cost of the environment and having pipelines running through the countryside and potential for future leaks and issues.
End of the day .. that sand oil deposit is going to mined whether Keystone goes through or not. I just dont see any pros to it outside of temporary job creation .. at the expense of the environment. Ill side with environment over the oil industry all day.
----
edit - are you saying the Oil Companies would have limited or reduced their crude oil by whatever amount of this sand oil came through the pipeline? That would certainly be something to consider but seems wishful thinking. Do you have an article for that?
Im just guessing but id guess they keep crude going as strong as they could (market allowing) then plus this sand oil. Not that sand oil would reduce crude production. Itd be your normal crude plus sand oil.
(seems most environment damage would happen in Canada where it would be mined on sight .. unless a pipe leaked in Montana or something)