Obama drags his feet on Keystone XL, again

[laughing dog]

No. It is very logical. If you build a pipeline from A to B it is not a reason against it that you also plan one from A to C. Especially when there is enough production to serve both (and then some).

You need to pay attention. Dismal wrote there were alternate routes. Assuming ordinary usage, those routes can only be considered alternatives if they have the same starting and end points. Hence your response is illogical.

I know what marginal means. I am not so sure you do.

Your responses rebut both your observations.

The marginal risk of one more new, advanced pipeline is small and does not increase the total risk appreciably. Reasoning on the margin would support your case if each additional unit increased total risk at an increasing rate. But that is not the case here and thus there is no good reason to reject it.

Your reasoning is non-economic: if the increase in risk from that pipeline is sufficient, it makes sense to delay or forego the project. In this case, the risks are specific to e particular region while the benefits are much more diffuse. Until the residents o that region
(i.e. the risk bearers) feel confident to the project, it is reaonable to postpone decisions.

 

[Derec]

You need to pay attention. Dismal wrote there were alternate routes. Assuming ordinary usage, those routes can only be considered alternatives if they have the same starting and end points. Hence your response is illogical.

They can be considered alternates from the standpoint of the seller if they result in their product being moved.

Your reasoning is non-economic: if the increase in risk from that pipeline is sufficient, it makes sense to delay or forego the project. In this case, the risks are specific to e particular region while the benefits are much more diffuse. Until the residents o that region
(i.e. the risk bearers) feel confident to the project, it is reaonable to postpone decisions.

Your "reasoning" is basically that of NIMBY veto. If that were applied consistently nothing would get built.
On the subject of margins, let me explain it more as I do not think you quite understood what I mean. Classic case is marginal cost. The marginal cost of producing Nth widget is much lower than (total cost)/N because of up-front cost of design and tooling which are independent of N. So it makes sense to look at marginal cost as that is the cost you actually have to pay to produce one more unit.
But with pipelines and risks there is no connection. Each pipeline, unlike widgets, is independent. So your analysis is not appropriate here.

 

[Derec]

\
The only ones who'll remember things as you put them will be the racists who wrongfully accused him of being so

Racists? Really now?

 

[Derec]

Definitely. Obama will be remembered as the President where oil production increased during his Presidency and will be damned for not building a pipeline to ship non-domestic oil to Louisiana for processing and then sale outside the US.

Mostly Texas. And not for shipment outside of US, but mostly use within US. And increase of oil production during his presidency had precious little to do with him or his policies.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes. Racists! Try figuring out how all those conservative hawks found a way to abandon "...politics ends at our borders..." by any other rationale?

Then try to find a reasoned rationale for why anyone would say Obama is weak after surging in Afghanistan, Keeping promises on Iraq, getting bin Laden, extracting cooperation from Russia, continuing, on Syrian gas removal, finding a way to enable our military to essentially eliminate Gaddafi, support removal of Mubarak from power in Egypt, illuminating Russia's duplicity near its borders, getting Europe to accept sanctions against Russia, and getting to the point we are now actually thinking about letting Palestine accrete to nationhood without going through an agreement with Israel?

 

[Derec]

Yes. Racists! Try figuring out how all those conservative hawks found a way to abandon "...politics ends at our borders..." by any other rationale?

Why were conservatives against Clinton? Why were liberals against Bush? Opposition to opposing party's candidate hardly needs racism as explanation.
That said, I like many of the things Obama did. And he is certainly preferable to contemporary Republicans on most issues. But that makes me even more motivated to be vocal to criticize him where he is clearly wrong. And delaying pipeline approval for years, for what are by now clearly political reasons, is one area where he needs to be criticized.

So yes, he has been dithering on this issue for way too long. It is bad for US, bad for Canada and bad for environment (because the alternatives are either transport by rail or producing more oil (sands) in places with less strict environmental regulations).

 

[pegasus8]

Why bad for US, Canada, et al? One must be referring to the energy and Wall St. interest and not the common everyday American!

When one says that not endorsing the green light of the XL pipeline is "bad " for American and Canadians this must be understood as having nothing to do with the millions of regular everyday rank and file working class slobs like ourselves. This is what amazes me in how some people need to convince all the working class slobs that what is bad for them is actually somehow good for them. And the Keystone XL is a perfect example.

Bottom line my dear Derec is that we both know this particular pipeline is just another of many built in the heart of the nation. And we both know that this "heavy/dirty" kind of sludge is costly and difficult to transport vs v any pipeline. Hence the $$millions invested to see this get through to the Gulf for export. And since this new "stream" of energy export will do little to nothing to get relief at the pump for all of us working class slobs then for the likes of me how does it benefit Americans? And of course some our going to bring up the rusty old artillery of how it is good for " energy independence," what every the heck that is supposed to mean. This position is absurd as it is pathetic in that it is a technique to garner support from the "illiterate masses." You know all of us working class slobs.

Well if these particular Americans are the ones who ponied up the $millions for the pipeline and the special refineries then we can agree. And we all know that out there in the "real world" it is all about one's ROI!!!! So the concern for all the negative aspects and effects of the XL pipeline must take a back seat to the financial interests! It is all about profits over people. Or more succinctly the ROI!

But the argument sounds good in how it is supposed to benefit Americans; this is the bait and switch or the famous coconut shell game. I am sure that we can ask our neighbors up north how they thought of the Tar Sand fields in Alberta and how they torpedoed this latest project like the Titanic. One way or the other the XL pipeline is going through with or without democratic or local support.


I am glad I do not own my home in the path of this latest dirty behemoth. How about you? Would you be cool if the pipeline went through your backyard? I know that I would be pissed. We all know what happened in that one neighborhood in Arkansas?

Peace

Pegasus

 

[laughing dog]

They can be considered alternates from the standpoint of the seller if they result in their product being moved.

So, you are saying that dismal's characterization was fuzzy? In my experience, dismal seems to know what dismal is talking about when it comes to energy issues like this.

Your "reasoning" is basically that of NIMBY veto. If that were applied consistently nothing would get built.

Your construction of straw men reflects on your paucity of reason in your position.

On the subject of margins, let me explain it more as I do not think you quite understood what I mean. Classic case is marginal cost. The marginal cost of producing Nth widget is much lower than (total cost)/N because of up-front cost of design and tooling which are independent of N. So it makes sense to look at marginal cost as that is the cost you actually have to pay to produce one more unit.
But with pipelines and risks there is no connection. Each pipeline, unlike widgets, is independent. So your analysis is not appropriate here.

I see no reason to provide an explanation for an admitted irrelevant argument. The marginal pipeline means the additional pipeline. This pipeline is the additional pipeline. This pipeline has risk associated with it and the potential costs of that risk are the additional expected costs to the population of that region. That should be balanced against the expected benefits. That is basic and proper application of economic analysis, contrary to the abundant misconceptions in your responses.

There is no dramatic harm to the nation to take this decision slowly and carefully. Any postponed benefits from this minor delay are not likely to be large. However, there is potential dramatic harm to the population of this region in taking this decision quickly and rashly as you propose.

 

[Derec]

So, you are saying that dismal's characterization was fuzzy? In my experience, dismal seems to know what dismal is talking about when it comes to energy issues like this.

Now we are getting mired in semantics.

Your construction of straw men reflects on your paucity of reason in your position.

Hardly. It is you who argued that the risks are to those in the pipeline corridor while the benefits are much more diffuse. That is classic NIMBY argumentation ("I do not care if pipelines are safer than rail - I live along the pipeline route, not along the railway") and can be applied to pretty much any large project.

I see no reason to provide an explanation for an admitted irrelevant argument. The marginal pipeline means the additional pipeline. This pipeline is the additional pipeline. This pipeline has risk associated with it and the potential costs of that risk are the additional expected costs to the population of that region. That should be balanced against the expected benefits. That is basic and proper application of economic analysis, contrary to the abundant misconceptions in your responses.

Benefits: decreased oil prices, greater energy security relative to getting the stuff from Venezuela, improved safety relative to rail/ship transport, jobs, transit fees, tax revenues
Costs: really none, as even increased risk of leaks along the pipeline route would be offset by even greater risk of accidents if rail or ships were used. Again, alternative to KXL is not "nothing at all" or "unicorns and butterflies"!

There is no dramatic harm to the nation to take this decision slowly and carefully.

We are way past "slowly and carefully". Transcanada first applied for the Keystone XL permit in September 2008 and Canadian authorities approved the project my March 2010. Obama administration pretty much had its total time in office to deal with this. State Department itself found nothing wrong with the pipeline. There is no reason to delay it further other the cynical political calculus that he can avoid pissing off KXL supporters (unions, those in red states voting for vulnerable D incumbent Senators like Mary Landrieu) and foes (radical ecomentalists, Tom Steyer and all the millions he pledged that would dry up if Obama approved) until the November election. I do not think he call pull that split off. He is not quite JC van Damme.

Any postponed benefits from this minor delay are not likely to be large.

Minor delay?

However, there is potential dramatic harm to the population of this region in taking this decision quickly and rashly as you propose.

Nothing rash about any of this. As I said, the pipeline has been examined since late 2008. There has been plenty of time. No reason for any further delays, as they are all political.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Definitely. Obama will be remembered as the President where oil production increased during his Presidency and will be damned for not building a pipeline to ship non-domestic oil to Louisiana for processing and then sale outside the US.

Mostly Texas. And not for shipment outside of US, but mostly use within US. And increase of oil production during his presidency had precious little to do with him or his policies.

But the word on the street is that he is killing oil production. Kind of like how Obama killed coal, instead of what was the primary killer of coal, fracking.

 

[laughing dog]

Now we are getting mired in semantics.

I am not mired in anything because I am not trying to reinterpret what others have clearly written.

Hardly. It is you who argued that the risks are to those in the pipeline corridor while the benefits are much more diffuse. That is classic NIMBY argumentation ("I do not care if pipelines are safer than rail - I live along the pipeline route, not along the railway") and can be applied to pretty much any large project.

It is a straw man because I did not make that argument.

Benefits: decreased oil prices, greater energy security relative to getting the stuff from Venezuela, improved safety relative to rail/ship transport, jobs, transit fees, tax revenues
Costs: really none, as even increased risk of leaks along the pipeline route would be offset by even greater risk of accidents if rail or ships were used. Again, alternative to KXL is not "nothing at all" or "unicorns and butterflies"!

Who says the potential costs of poisoning the water supply in that region is offset by even the greater risk of accidents if alternatives are used?

We are way past "slowly and carefully". Transcanada first applied for the Keystone XL permit in September 2008 and Canadian authorities approved the project my March 2010. Obama administration pretty much had its total time in office to deal with this. State Department itself found nothing wrong with the pipeline. There is no reason to delay it further other the cynical political calculus that he can avoid pissing off KXL supporters (unions, those in red states voting for vulnerable D incumbent Senators like Mary Landrieu) and foes (radical ecomentalists, Tom Steyer and all the millions he pledged that would dry up if Obama approved) until the November election. I do not think he call pull that split off. He is not quite JC van Damme.

According to you, the US has not even had 4 years to make a decision, hardly way pass "slowly and carefully".

 

[Derec]

It is a straw man because I did not make that argument.

Uhm, yes you did!

In this case, the risks are specific to e particular region while the benefits are much more diffuse. Until the residents o that region
(i.e. the risk bearers) feel confident to the project, it is reaonable to postpone decisions.

Who says the potential costs of poisoning the water supply in that region is offset by even the greater risk of accidents if alternatives are used?

See for example here.

According to you, the US has not even had 4 years to make a decision, hardly way pass "slowly and carefully".

Not according to me. I never said US only started considering the pipeline in 2010. And even under your (not mine) assumption were correct 4 years is more than enough, especially since pipelines are a routine, mature technology. But what we got is one delay after another. Nobody (except for you apparently) is buying that all these delays are factually necessary and not just politically motivated.
Keystone XL’s continued delay is absurd
How Keystone XL soured the ‘special relationship’ between Stephen Harper and Barack Obama

There are many Democrats who support the pipeline - according to recent polls about half of rank and file but also vulnerable Democratic Senators like Mary Landrieu (LA), Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR) are up for reelection and support the pipeline. Heidi Keitkamp (ND) is not up this year but also supports it, as does Alison Lundergan Grimes who is challenging Senate Minority Leader (thanks to Obama's dithering likely Senate Majority Leader in 2015?) Mitch McConnell.
On the other side are 100,000,000 reasons provided by billionaire Tom Steyer, a staunch (and irrational) pipeline opponent.

 

[Clivedurdle]

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the...=nl.e660&s_cid=e660&ttag=e660&ftag=TRE4eb29b5

Bye bye fossil fuels

 

[laughing dog]

Uhm, yes you did!

No, I did not. You should be able to back up your claims.

In this case, the risks are specific to e particular region while the benefits are much more diffuse. Until the residents o that region
(i.e. the risk bearers) feel confident to the project, it is reaonable to postpone decisions.

See for example here.

My fault for asking a silly question. Of course, a hardcore pro-market conservative "thinktank" would come to that conclusion.

Not according to me. I never said US only started considering the pipeline in 2010.

You brought up the timeline, not me. Do you have any evidence the US government studied the possible effects of a pipeline that yet to be proposed?

And even under your (not mine) assumption were correct 4 years is more than enough, especially since pipelines are a routine, mature technology. But what we got is one delay after another. Nobody (except for you apparently) is buying that all these delays are factually necessary and not just politically motivated.

I never claimed that all these delays are factually necessary. I said it is not unreasonable to be cautious.

There are many Democrats who support the pipeline - according to recent polls about half of rank and file but also vulnerable Democratic Senators like Mary Landrieu (LA), Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR) are up for reelection and support the pipeline. Heidi Keitkamp (ND) is not up this year but also supports it, as does Alison Lundergan Grimes who is challenging Senate Minority Leader (thanks to Obama's dithering likely Senate Majority Leader in 2015?) Mitch McConnell.

And the point of this is...?

On the other side are 100,000,000 reasons provided by billionaire Tom Steyer, a staunch (and irrational) pipeline opponent.

And the point of this character act is....?

 

[dismal]

Nothing rash about any of this. As I said, the pipeline has been examined since late 2008. There has been plenty of time. No reason for any further delays, as they are all political.

This is the part that doesn't seem to be getting the proper amount of attention.

The government has run its traditional process to validate the safety of this line. There are no unique risks to this line. That is the final word of the government professionals. Moreover, blocking the line accomplishes next to nothing. Other slightly more expensive slightly less optimal lines will be built, have been built. Interim movements are being made have been made by rail and truck. These movements are less efficient for society and environmentally worse than if the pipeline had just been approved under the normal course.

As a partially interested and informed bystander the situation appears bizarrely irrational. Near as I can tell, a lot of time and energy has been spent educating and agitating against the word "Keystone". It's as if the focus of the environmental movement can only be maintained on one thing at a time, no matter how pointless that focus and effort may be.

It is somewhat pathetic to see Obama ignore basic logic and the experienced professionals in his administration and cater to the irrationality, but I guess if it helps his party collect Steyer's millions it's not irrational for him.

The big plus of all this misplaced time and attention on Keystone is it actually lets the industry get other pipeline projects done, away from the irrational noise and controversy of the mob.

 

[dismal]

I actually agree. They will remember him dithering, afraid of ecomentalists in his base and billionaires like Steyer. Not a pretty picture!

Definitely. Obama will be remembered as the President where oil production increased during his Presidency and will be damned for not building a pipeline to ship non-domestic oil to Louisiana for processing and then sale outside the US.

I'm curious what you think Obama did to create the increase in domestic oil production these last few years.

And very curious as to why the environmental movement would have given him a free pass on it.

I mean, if all this extra oil production is bad he must be he worst environmental president in history.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm curious what you think Obama did to create the increase in domestic oil production these last few years.

And very curious as to why the environmental movement would have given him a free pass on it.

I mean, if all this extra oil production is bad he must be he worst environmental president in history.

I'm not the you, but, Obama's contributions are pretty obvious. He assured himself through study and examination that fracking in the US was pretty safe, which permits both oil and gas extraction. Increased gas extraction at very low cost lead to gas replacing coal as the fuel for energy production which decreases the US carbon footprint, a big environmental win. He's been pretty tough on coal demanding higher emissions and safety standards, but, he's willing to let it be shipped to China as long as states and communities approve of routes and facilities. After all it is China's responsibility to make their air breathable. Another benefit of not acting like the world's cop which I think will be along with health care the signature accomplishment of the Obama administration.

He's going slow on that pipeline from Canada across critical american aquifers to gulf ports carrying dirty oil to other countries with only transport fee taxes as benefit. Its pretty obvious he'll approve the line if suits fail.

Summarizing, he's been responsible for getting the work done on fracking safety, limiting coal fired energy, insuring route, facility, and pipeline safety all big wins for environmentalists while being responsible for extending the results of fracking safety opening up, with little possibility of suits, enormous gains in oil and gas production in the US,. If routes and facilities are approved, and most will be, he'll have been the engine that engaged export of coal and gas at levels never before seen in america.

 

[dismal]

I'm not the you, but, Obama's contributions are pretty obvious.

Not to people who actually understand this stuff.

He assured himself through study and examination that fracking in the US was pretty safe

Fracking has been around since long before Obama and there has never been any evidence it isn't safe.

If you want to argue he is responsible for the oil production increase because he did not ban the efforts of others that actually did cause it you have a pedantically correct and observably silly point, assuming he did have the power to ban it which is debatable as most of it is regulated at the state level.

By this sort of logic he is also responsible for the Red Sox winning the world series because he did not ban baseball.

 

[Derec]

No, I did not. You should be able to back up your claims.

I did. I posted the exact quote where you said that.

My fault for asking a silly question. Of course, a hardcore pro-market conservative "thinktank" would come to that conclusion.

That's what's called a "genetic fallacy". What does them being "pro-market" or "conservative" have to do with assessment of different methods of transport of hydrocarbons?
In any case, do you have any source(s) that contradict this, even if it is from a 'hardcore anti-market progressive "thinktank"', or are you just blowing smoke?

You brought up the timeline, not me. Do you have any evidence the US government studied the possible effects of a pipeline that yet to be proposed?

Yes I brought up the pipeline where Keystone XL first applied for approval in 2008. That's 6 years ago, not 4 as you claimed. No need to study the pipeline before it has been proposed as it has been proposed quite a while ago.

I never claimed that all these delays are factually necessary. I said it is not unreasonable to be cautious.

If they are not necessary why delay the approval this long? At this time, it's obviously political foot-dragging and has been for quite a while.

And the point of this is...?

The point is that even many Democrats are in favor of the pipeline. And those are by and large the same Democrats whose survival in 2014 is crucial for Democratic control of Senate. Thus, approving the pipeline is not just good policy but also good politics.

And the point of this character act is....?

Character act? What do you mean?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I actually agree. They will remember him dithering, afraid of ecomentalists in his base and billionaires like Steyer. Not a pretty picture!

Definitely. Obama will be remembered as the President where oil production increased during his Presidency and will be damned for not building a pipeline to ship non-domestic oil to Louisiana for processing and then sale outside the US.

I'm curious what you think Obama did to create the increase in domestic oil production these last few years.

I'd be more curious to see where I claimed that increase in production was a result of Obama's policies.