Keystone Pipeline

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Rambo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 am

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _Rambo »

zeezrom wrote:What we really could use is lower consumption. But who wants that? Not me!


This would take time to switch over without destroying the economy. More public transit would need to be built and higher density created within cities.

I guess people could sell their big suburban home and live and a smaller place close to downtown or where they work so they could walk or use transit.

I did notice when oil prices got really high there was a lot of car pooling going on or people just did not go out as much. It really seems to be economics that are driving peoples use and not really the enviroment. Although, there is starting to be a change with this.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _Brackite »

The use of oil has helped the Conservative State of North Dakota to have the lowest unemployment rate within the Nation.

The Following news article is from the Los Angeles Times:


North Dakota isn't feeling the slump

The state has added 20,000 jobs in the last year and the unemployment rate is 3.5%, the lowest in the nation. But that doesn't mean people here are any happier with Washington.

October 01, 2011 | By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Watford City, N.D. — If people anywhere in the nation should feel good about the economy, it's those living in North Dakota, where an oil boom is creating so many jobs that even taco joints offer $15 an hour to attract employees.

Drawn by the promise of well-paying jobs, people from across the country flock here and settle in the makeshift clusters of RV campers and manufactured mobile homes that dot the outskirts of towns like this one, two hours south of the Canadian border.

The state of North Dakota has added 20,000 jobs over the last year, and its unemployment rate is the lowest in the nation, at 3.5%. Its budget has an estimated $1-billion surplus.

"I was told this is the only place in the country where there were jobs," said Stephen Swaner, 29, who lives in a van with his girlfriend, her father and their dog and works 16-hour days, hoping to pay off debt he incurred after getting laid off two years ago from a job at a foundry in Spokane, Wash. "There's all kinds of opportunity here."

But even after finding a new life in this land of plenty, people say they're still unhappy with the direction of the country and with politicians in general. The maxim "It's the economy, stupid" doesn't seem to hold true in North Dakota.

This state epitomizes a problem the Obama administration may face even if it is able to turn the economy around by 2012: People have suffered in this recession, and even when back on their feet, they have long memories of what they lost along the way.

Steve Williams, 59, moved his struggling construction company from Montana to Watford City, where he lives with his wife, son and two towheaded grandsons in a home he's renovating in exchange for rent. He knows he has a lot to be thankful for: He has health insurance for the first time in decades, a steady job and a new life in a town he says is "America, the way it should be."

"I have more work than I know what to do with," said Williams, a slight man with a brown beard and glasses. "I look at it like the Gold Rush."

But Williams is losing his $1-million home in Montana to foreclosure, and spent his first few months in North Dakota camped out in a tiny RV with his family, going to the bathroom in a bucket and living without running water.

"We're starting over again at 60, and we're adaptable. But our hopes and dreams got washed by the wayside," he said, as he fed his grandsons carrots and potatoes in his kitchen, where he and his wife sleep on a foldout couch each night. Light bulbs hang from the ceiling near exposed sockets, and the yellow, peeling walls are stuffed with sacks of fiberglass for insulation.

Thousands of others like Williams have left their ambitions behind for the wind-swept prairie. The population of Watford City, which was 1,570 in the 2010 Census, has grown to more than 5,000. In the first quarter of the year, sales tax receipts were up 72% from the same time the previous year. Schools are fuller than they've been in decades.

North Dakota's economy has soared since the discovery of the Bakken Shale, a deposit of oil that has proven both plentiful and relatively easy to extract. There are no signs of a slowdown in the fields: Research firm Raymond James predicts that production from the region will account for 15% of total domestic oil supply by 2015.

The oil boom is fueling growth throughout the economy. In Williston, a town 45 miles north of Watford City along a heavily traveled two-lane highway, hotels charge $200 a night for meager accommodations and are so overbooked that many newcomers sleep in their cars. Migrants post ads on Craigslist begging for rooming for less than $3,000 a month.

"Help wanted" signs are pasted on nearly every building: the local Jack & Jill supermarket, the Super 8 Hotel, the McDonald's, Hardee's and Taco John's. Builders plan to thaw the ground with heaters so they can work through the winter to construct industrial parks for the companies they're sure will come in the spring.

That doesn't mean people in Watford City are content with the White House, said Mayor Brent Sanford, who owns the only car dealership in town. Though families finally have enough cash to upgrade their cars, they won't buy Chevrolets, which he said they call "Obama Motors" because of the government's bailout of the company. Newcomers are relieved to have jobs, he said, but are also frustrated at what they had to go through to find them.

"Their lives have been destroyed, they've lost homes and businesses, they've had to sell their cars for plane tickets to get here," he said. "The desperation is just incredible."




Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01 ... a-20110928



The Conservative State of North Dakota now has an unemployment rate as low as 3.3%.

Link: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/north-dakota/
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _EAllusion »

When did North Dakota's name become The Conservative State of North Dakota?

Oil prices are high right now. That's helpful to a sparsely populated state that heavily relies on the oil industry to drive its economy. If your economic plan is to have massive oil wealth per capita to exploit, Norway and Qatar have already beaten you to it.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _honorentheos »

Rambo - I think Obama made the right decision in not approving the pipeline, but also in re-inviting for permit resubmittal. The unanswered questions about impacts it may have caused justified not rushing in to a decision that, once made, would be impractical to reverse. Kind of like of-shore drilling, say, which you may recall he supported just prior to the BP/Gulf spill. Better to make some decisions on Monday sober than Saturday night you might say.

I'm a little surprised that the question of carbon emissions hasn't come up yet. Especially given the accusation that this board is largely composed of bleeding heart liberals. ;)

That said, I think you're right about the long term payoff being a big issue for wind. I work in the environmental planning industry as part of my job and spend some time with agencies as well as private/public participants who deal in energy transmission as well as generation. And it costs a lot to build green tech upfront, though the long-term costs are much less than coal or other fossil fuel generation. With traditional fossil fuel generator plants, companies pass on both the start-up costs of building as well as on-going costs for fuel to consumers. As a consumer, we would actually be better off with more of our energy coming from wind.

I recently read something about increasing efficiency, along with Zeez's point, and it was a similar story. One area that we could make a large impact would be in getting our homes and businesses audited for energy use and implementing savings measures. They are known to pay for themselves usually in 7 years or so. But all the up-front costs make this prohibitive to do, and banks are not likely to lend to someone who might not be in the building in 7 years later and therefore not likely to pay off the loan.

About two weeks ago I was lucky enough to visit a very large site that will become a solar producer. In speaking with the people running the future operations it was interesting to me how it seems we, as Americans, are falling behind in the technology. It isn't quite there yet with fossils or wind, so I understand why we don't use it that much. But when the people who are producing and managing the install are all from South American countries it becomes more telling about where we may stand in the race to be competitive in the future of the industry.

In the end, I think the bigger issues are related to the idea of "The Tragedy of the Commons". Some (many?) economists and sociologists suggest that there must be a mechanism for punishing actions that are not in the collective best interest or reward actions that are in order to prevent drop off in voluntary participation. Otherwise, people take the short view most of the time over the long one. But if one is inclined to believe the long view (i.e. - in this case leaving the world as good or better for our children's generation is more important than maximizing my immediate gains) then it can move from a technical question to one of ethics in a hurry. Unless a person is a climate change denier, it seems practically immoral to suggest that since oil will get burned one way or the other we might as well be the ones to burn it. Since I'm pretty sure human-related climate change is real and - like the US military believes - will have negative impacts on our well-being I'm glad the President found a way to take a breath before making the decision. Rather cleverly, too, in my opinion.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:When did North Dakota's name become The Conservative State of North Dakota?

Oil prices are high right now. That's helpful to a sparsely populated state that heavily relies on the oil industry to drive its economy. If your economic plan is to have massive oil wealth per capita to exploit, Norway and Qatar have already beaten you to it.

Not to mention, ND is also becoming a hot spot for wind generation. See here for example - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/largest-wind-farm-in-north-dakota-announced-52187287.html

As a state, it has a high potential for wind energy production and, all things being equal, high potential will translate into high realization of that potential.

I'm also a bit surprised no one has brought up nuclear as an option to fossil fuels. Has Fukushima really killed nuclear?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Bond James Bond wrote:I'm for building the pipeline, as long as 25% of all profits must be reinvested in producing clean energy...eventually we're going to run out of oil guys. The wind always blows though, the water always runs downhill, and the sun always shines.


We don't need to spend money to produce alternative energy.....
All that has to be done is governments simply mandate that all new homes must have a windmill and solar shingles and siding or otherwise. Homes would be entirely energy self sufficient.

We already have Hybrids which are getting popular, and new cars gas only can be phased out.

We should be recycling ALL trash.

These simple things which wouldn't require any new taxes, over burdened regulations, etc. can all be done right now, and oil would become much less needed. In the meantime, if they think they need that pipeline, then let them.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _ldsfaqs »

zeezrom wrote:we could use less energy too. But that is very un-Republican.


That's because we don't NEED to use less energy, see above.
Energy is part of what has made any country "modern" and have a better quality of life.
I know liberals want us to live on a farm and grow our own food again, but sorry, we are a modern age now.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _ldsfaqs »

EAllusion wrote:
Rambo wrote:yes wind always blows but if those projects were economic companies would be building them like crazy. They are only economic if the government subsidizes them.


Windmill technology has progressed to the point where it actually is pretty economic in certain areas of the country. They are being built at a rapid clip even without subsidies. The Walker administration killed a ton of windmill proposals in my state, without subsidies, by making it near impossible for them to get permission to build. That's because he's beholden to oil interests, but sans Walker, there'd be more windmills here than there are now. The main problem with windmills is they are bad at providing a steady stream of power, so a community can't rely on them exclusively.


The large windmills are a HUGE mistake..... They are costly, less efficient, power is lost, they are not economical (cost/benefit ratio), they take up huge spaces of land, they kill thousands of birds, etc. etc.

We don't need power company's for almost anything anymore.
Home Windmills will provide about 25% of needed power, and then including solar shingles/siding, etc. that will provide the rest.

It ticked me off to no end that the last Las Vegas housing boom, the liberal government didn't require new homes to have these two technology's. Me, I'm a Conservative Republican, had I been running the show I certainly would have.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Bond James Bond wrote:
zeezrom wrote:What we really could use is lower consumption. But who wants that? Not me!


I'm all for technology that is more efficient, but you can't get the damn Republicans to get behind new light bulbs because the Terrorists will win via mercury poisoning and the more efficient light bulbs would decrease production of those damn incandescent bulbs that crap out after 200-400 hours of use.


Bull crap..... More liberal lying.....

We Republicans are ALL FOR the new Light bulbs. I use them in my home. But the older bulbs STILL have some use, are a better light in certain respects, and should not be banned.

Further, if each home had their own power grid like I've explained above, it wouldn't matter what "bulb" someone is using.

Even further, banning a bulb simply because it uses a little more energy and doesn't last as long is completely contrary to freedom, it's EVIL!
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Keystone Pipeline

Post by _ldsfaqs »

honorentheos wrote:I'm also a bit surprised no one has brought up nuclear as an option to fossil fuels. Has Fukushima really killed nuclear?


Ya, I just don't think it's worth it...... Unless they can come up with a 100% safe reactor that won't spaz during earthquake or otherwise, and unless they can 100% recycle or otherwise get rid of the stuff without storage or polluting, then I simply see no need for Nuclear when homes and other buildings can have solar and wind technology providing nearly all power needed in the country.

I'm talking about "personal" versions, not these stupid farms which still makes us have to pay a power bill, still looses energy with distance, takes up land, etc. etc.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
Post Reply