Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Many of those estimated 140,000 direct and indirect jobs would be union. Thats why in addition to most Republicans, the unions want this, too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul ... er-energy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Typical Obama..

How about the continual lip service that has been paid to America's addiction to oil, regardless of where it comes from, since the George HW Bush presidential term in 1988. That's 22 years of saying we need to develop other energy sources other than oil. Well I was filling my gas tank up for less than a dollar per gallon in 1998, now I'm happy when I can get it under $3.25/gal.

Actually I'm glad Obama said no to oil for once, but then again, I'm sure oil still wins in this, just more powerful oil lobbyists than the Keystone XL people.

Entrpenuers out there - where are the electric cars? Where are more generations of hybrids? Where are the natural gas cars? Why can't someone invent a car that runs on water?

Either way this came down, we still all lose. Oil is a losing bet - well unless you own their stocks of course.

I would much prefer we get our oil from the cannucks than the Arabs, but why does it have to go all the way to Houston unless they're planning on shipping it to China. Vancouver is about a 1/4 of the distance. Is this a refinery issue? And doesn't the tar sands oil require way more energy output to produce? What about the recent spill into the Yellowstone River? Lots of issues with this one. I'd punt too.

It's easy to say we should have something other than oil, but the problem comes down to it that we don't have anything cheaper and as good as oil and that's why we still use it. It's fine to come up with the science of something else, but the problem always comes down to the economics of how to make something cost effective versus the cost of oil. And it's not just a subsidy issue - even if we removed every tax break that oil companies get to use (and there are plenty that aren't even questionable "subsidies" as they are applicable to every other business out there and not oil specific) oil would still be cheaper. There's just a lot of oil in the world, and there will be for well past our lifetimes, and we get better and better at being able to get to it.

As for this pipeline, punting on it, while politically valuable, is just really a failure of leadership. I'm getting tired of the list of things that are going to be addressed after next year's election - why can't we deal with these things now? There's going to be another election in 2016, once we get to 2013 are we just going to start punting more and more issues to that election?

As for why it's going to Houston, without knowing for certain, I would imagine it is a refinery issue. Look at a list of refineries in America and where they are located - the biggest ones, and the biggest cluster of refineries, are all on the Gulf coast. It just isn't economical to build refineries elsewhere, for a whole host of reasons. Heck, Sunoco's even getting out of the refining business and they're closing two big refineries in the Philly area. It's just part of the trend that has gone on for awhile now. So you got to send the oil to where the refineries are and a pipeline is a whole lot cheaper and less environmentally hazardous that putting the oil on ships and sending it around South America (I'm assuming the Panama Canal can't handle ships of that size).

Politics won here and it's not good for anyone (well, except the politicians of course).

GannonFan wrote:As for this pipeline, punting on it, while politically valuable, is just really a failure of leadership. I'm getting tired of the list of things that are going to be addressed after next year's election - why can't we deal with these things now? There's going to be another election in 2016, once we get to 2013 are we just going to start punting more and more issues to that election?

Perceptive you are, GF! Yessss! -- Yoda.

GannonFan wrote:It's easy to say we should have something other than oil, but the problem comes down to it that we don't have anything cheaper and as good as oil and that's why we still use it. It's fine to come up with the science of something else, but the problem always comes down to the economics of how to make something cost effective versus the cost of oil. And it's not just a subsidy issue - even if we removed every tax break that oil companies get to use (and there are plenty that aren't even questionable "subsidies" as they are applicable to every other business out there and not oil specific) oil would still be cheaper. There's just a lot of oil in the world, and there will be for well past our lifetimes, and we get better and better at being able to get to it.

As for this pipeline, punting on it, while politically valuable, is just really a failure of leadership. I'm getting tired of the list of things that are going to be addressed after next year's election - why can't we deal with these things now? There's going to be another election in 2016, once we get to 2013 are we just going to start punting more and more issues to that election?

As for why it's going to Houston, without knowing for certain, I would imagine it is a refinery issue. Look at a list of refineries in America and where they are located - the biggest ones, and the biggest cluster of refineries, are all on the Gulf coast. It just isn't economical to build refineries elsewhere, for a whole host of reasons. Heck, Sunoco's even getting out of the refining business and they're closing two big refineries in the Philly area. It's just part of the trend that has gone on for awhile now. So you got to send the oil to where the refineries are and a pipeline is a whole lot cheaper and less environmentally hazardous that putting the oil on ships and sending it around South America (I'm assuming the Panama Canal can't handle ships of that size).

Politics won here and it's not good for anyone (well, except the politicians of course).

"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop"

- William F. Buckley

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:It's easy to say we should have something other than oil, but the problem comes down to it that we don't have anything cheaper and as good as oil and that's why we still use it. It's fine to come up with the science of something else, but the problem always comes down to the economics of how to make something cost effective versus the cost of oil. And it's not just a subsidy issue - even if we removed every tax break that oil companies get to use (and there are plenty that aren't even questionable "subsidies" as they are applicable to every other business out there and not oil specific) oil would still be cheaper. There's just a lot of oil in the world, and there will be for well past our lifetimes, and we get better and better at being able to get to it.

As for this pipeline, punting on it, while politically valuable, is just really a failure of leadership. I'm getting tired of the list of things that are going to be addressed after next year's election - why can't we deal with these things now? There's going to be another election in 2016, once we get to 2013 are we just going to start punting more and more issues to that election?

As for why it's going to Houston, without knowing for certain, I would imagine it is a refinery issue. Look at a list of refineries in America and where they are located - the biggest ones, and the biggest cluster of refineries, are all on the Gulf coast. It just isn't economical to build refineries elsewhere, for a whole host of reasons. Heck, Sunoco's even getting out of the refining business and they're closing two big refineries in the Philly area. It's just part of the trend that has gone on for awhile now. So you got to send the oil to where the refineries are and a pipeline is a whole lot cheaper and less environmentally hazardous that putting the oil on ships and sending it around South America (I'm assuming the Panama Canal can't handle ships of that size).

Politics won here and it's not good for anyone (well, except the politicians of course).

"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop"

- William F. Buckley

I don't understand your point? Are you inferring that Obama is a conservative because he's trying to yell "stop" to a world that is pretty much dependent on oil for the next lifetime, or at least until the next election? I'm not sure I would classify Obama as a conservative.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop"

- William F. Buckley

I don't understand your point? Are you inferring that Obama is a conservative because he's trying to yell "stop" to a world that is pretty much dependent on oil for the next lifetime, or at least until the next election? I'm not sure I would classify Obama as a conservative.

My point is that I get the feeling you would have been opposed to the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, the Interstate Highway Program, and the lunar expedition as well.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you inferring that Obama is a conservative because he's trying to yell "stop" to a world that is pretty much dependent on oil for the next lifetime, or at least until the next election? I'm not sure I would classify Obama as a conservative.

My point is that I get the feeling you would have been opposed to the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, the Interstate Highway Program, and the lunar expedition as well.

I always thought we overpaid the damn Frogs back in 1803!

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you inferring that Obama is a conservative because he's trying to yell "stop" to a world that is pretty much dependent on oil for the next lifetime, or at least until the next election? I'm not sure I would classify Obama as a conservative.

My point is that I get the feeling you would have been opposed to the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, the Interstate Highway Program, and the lunar expedition as well.

How in the world do you get THAT from GF's post?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
My point is that I get the feeling you would have been opposed to the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, the Interstate Highway Program, and the lunar expedition as well.

How in the world do you get THAT from GF's post?

His dismissal and condescension toward alt energy.

I don't have a source to quote but the refinery thing comes down to EPA regulations. I certainly don't know the regulations but I've heard you almost can't build a new refinery these days. About all they can do is expand the ones they have.

Some day car will run on pure vegtable oil. There is a $1K conversion kit and you use diesel to start it as you need a little heat for the veg oil to burn right. The price break is about $6 per gallon, so when diesel hits that, it will be cheaper to go to the grocery store and buy my fuel. There are alternatives out there but they just dont' make economic sense. It is like lots and lots of people bitching about walmart.......while they are shopping at walmart becuase it is cheaper.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
How in the world do you get THAT from GF's post?

His dismissal and condescension toward alt energy.

Yeah, don't let the actual truth get in the way of a good insult.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
His dismissal and condescension toward alt energy.

Yeah, don't let the actual truth get in the way of a good insult.

The "truth" is an ever-changing thing now isn't it?

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, don't let the actual truth get in the way of a good insult.

The "truth" is an ever-changing thing now isn't it?

True. But that doesn't change the fact that THIS:

GannonFan wrote:It's easy to say we should have something other than oil, but the problem comes down to it that we don't have anything cheaper and as good as oil and that's why we still use it. It's fine to come up with the science of something else, but the problem always comes down to the economics of how to make something cost effective versus the cost of oil. And it's not just a subsidy issue - even if we removed every tax break that oil companies get to use (and there are plenty that aren't even questionable "subsidies" as they are applicable to every other business out there and not oil specific) oil would still be cheaper. There's just a lot of oil in the world, and there will be for well past our lifetimes, and we get better and better at being able to get to it.

Is currently the absolute truth and does NOT make GF (or anyone else) guilty of "dismissive or condescending" towards alternative energy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The "truth" is an ever-changing thing now isn't it?

True. But that doesn't change the fact that THIS:

GannonFan wrote:It's easy to say we should have something other than oil, but the problem comes down to it that we don't have anything cheaper and as good as oil and that's why we still use it. It's fine to come up with the science of something else, but the problem always comes down to the economics of how to make something cost effective versus the cost of oil. And it's not just a subsidy issue - even if we removed every tax break that oil companies get to use (and there are plenty that aren't even questionable "subsidies" as they are applicable to every other business out there and not oil specific) oil would still be cheaper. There's just a lot of oil in the world, and there will be for well past our lifetimes, and we get better and better at being able to get to it.

Is currently the absolute truth and does NOT make GF (or anyone else) guilty of "dismissive or condescending" towards alternative energy.

I agree on the cheaper, but as Gannon admitted, there are extenuating circumstances. The real cost of gas in the U.S. if you account for all of the externalities would be well north of $10/gallon. So now you're left basing your "truth" on Gannon's oil is more gooder analysis. Brilliant!

BTW, I think you owe me some props on the excellent Buckley quote. At least Ivy's got my back. I'm going to have to file a hurt feelings report against you I'm afraid.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you inferring that Obama is a conservative because he's trying to yell "stop" to a world that is pretty much dependent on oil for the next lifetime, or at least until the next election? I'm not sure I would classify Obama as a conservative.

My point is that I get the feeling you would have been opposed to the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, the Interstate Highway Program, and the lunar expedition as well.

Nah, you're just guessing now. For the record:

Louisiana Purchase: I was all for it, I mean, the price was just begging us to take it. We had Napolean by the balls in that negotiation.

Manifest Destiny: Mixed bag on this one. I was all for the expansion westward, but you have to admit, we kinda screwed over the Native Americans from time to time. Probably should've done it cleaner and nicer than we did.

Interstate Highway Program: Absolutely all for it. I hate back roads.

Lunar Expedition: Absolutely all for it. And heck, I think we stopped too soon. We should have a permanent lunar base by now, and should've even sent a manned mission to Mars (although I can be talked out of that in favor of a really good drone/rover mission there). I'm a huge fan of space exploration and I think we're missing the boat on that one by cutting back like we are.

Let me know if there's any other area you don't know where I stand and I'll let you know!

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
True. But that doesn't change the fact that THIS:



Is currently the absolute truth and does NOT make GF (or anyone else) guilty of "dismissive or condescending" towards alternative energy.

I agree on the cheaper, but as Gannon admitted, there are extenuating circumstances. The real cost of gas in the U.S. if you account for all of the externalities would be well north of $10/gallon. So now you're left basing your "truth" on Gannon's oil is more gooder analysis. Brilliant!

BTW, I think you owe me some props on the excellent Buckley quote. At least Ivy's got my back. I'm going to have to file a hurt feelings report against you I'm afraid.

I'm not against alternative energy, per se, I'm just a realist. I think we should be researching alternative energy much more than we do today, but when we keep finding more and more oil and natural gas and other things we keep hoping we are running out of (so that we're forced to go to alternative energy) then it just makes it harder for alternative energy to really make a foothold. I'm not convinced that wind and solar are going to be the answers, at least not without a pretty significant technical breakthrough that makes them far more efficient than they are today. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue making them more efficient, but while we wait for the science to hit paydirt we need to make other plans. Heck, I've always been in favor of nuclear power - just have to make sure not to put them over a faultline or in the way of a tsunami.

My point, however, is that we can't just "wish" oil away and we can't "wish" for alternative energies to be cheaper than oil. So in the short term, the punting of this pipeline from Canada is just weak leadership - we need the oil, we can do it pretty safely, and we're not going to find anything better in the next decade or so. Research takes time, development takes time, and really meaningful advances in alternative energy are going to take time. Politics would love for there to be a quick and easy answer to oil - problem is, politics isn't really concerened with the real world, just the next election cycle.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree on the cheaper, but as Gannon admitted, there are extenuating circumstances. The real cost of gas in the U.S. if you account for all of the externalities would be well north of $10/gallon. So now you're left basing your "truth" on Gannon's oil is more gooder analysis. Brilliant!

BTW, I think you owe me some props on the excellent Buckley quote. At least Ivy's got my back. I'm going to have to file a hurt feelings report against you I'm afraid.

I'm not against alternative energy, per se, I'm just a realist. I think we should be researching alternative energy much more than we do today, but when we keep finding more and more oil and natural gas and other things we keep hoping we are running out of (so that we're forced to go to alternative energy) then it just makes it harder for alternative energy to really make a foothold. I'm not convinced that wind and solar are going to be the answers, at least not without a pretty significant technical breakthrough that makes them far more efficient than they are today. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue making them more efficient, but while we wait for the science to hit paydirt we need to make other plans. Heck, I've always been in favor of nuclear power - just have to make sure not to put them over a faultline or in the way of a tsunami.

My point, however, is that we can't just "wish" oil away and we can't "wish" for alternative energies to be cheaper than oil. So in the short term, the punting of this pipeline from Canada is just weak leadership - we need the oil, we can do it pretty safely, and we're not going to find anything better in the next decade or so. Research takes time, development takes time, and really meaningful advances in alternative energy are going to take time. Politics would love for there to be a quick and easy answer to oil - problem is, politics isn't really concerened with the real world, just the next election cycle.

on your last two posts.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
True. But that doesn't change the fact that THIS:



Is currently the absolute truth and does NOT make GF (or anyone else) guilty of "dismissive or condescending" towards alternative energy.

I agree on the cheaper, but as Gannon admitted, there are extenuating circumstances. The real cost of gas in the U.S. if you account for all of the externalities would be well north of $10/gallon. So now you're left basing your "truth" on Gannon's oil is more gooder analysis. Brilliant!

BTW, I think you owe me some props on the excellent Buckley quote. At least Ivy's got my back. I'm going to have to file a hurt feelings report against you I'm afraid.

It wouldn't be the first. And probably won't be the last.

Maybe we should focus on maintaining the ones we already have before okay-ing new ones.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/29777592/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:Maybe we should focus on maintaining the ones we already have before okay-ing new ones.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/29777592/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure thing, Appa.

travelinman67 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Maybe we should focus on maintaining the ones we already have before okay-ing new ones.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/29777592/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure thing, Appa.

If you're insinuating that I care about preserving the natural beauty and environmental integrity of my home state, then thanks. I do.

bluehenbillk wrote:How about the continual lip service that has been paid to America's addiction to oil, regardless of where it comes from, since the George HW Bush presidential term in 1988. That's 22 years of saying we need to develop other energy sources other than oil. Well I was filling my gas tank up for less than a dollar per gallon in 1998, now I'm happy when I can get it under $3.25/gal.

Actually I'm glad Obama said no to oil for once, but then again, I'm sure oil still wins in this, just more powerful oil lobbyists than the Keystone XL people.

Entrpenuers out there - where are the electric cars? Where are more generations of hybrids? Where are the natural gas cars? Why can't someone invent a car that runs on water?

Either way this came down, we still all lose. Oil is a losing bet - well unless you own their stocks of course.

BS. Just read in the WSJ today (have to go to another website to get article online):

Anadarko Raises Colorado Oil Tally

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said that land it controls in northern Colorado may hold more than a billion barrels of recoverable oil and natural gas, the latest sign that U.S. energy production is set to surge.

The Woodlands, Texas-based exploration company’s disclosure could vault Colorado’s Wattenberg field into the ranks of major oil developments in the United States, joining the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in South Texas. These new sources of oil are reversing four decades of declining domestic energy production.

What is making these possible are new technologies, including the horizontal drilling of wells that start vertically and then turn to run horizontally through energy-rich rocks. Another key technology is hydraulic fracturing, which involves pumping millions of gallons of water and sand, along with chemicals, to break open deeply buried rocks and free oil and natural gas to flow to the surface.

James Hackett, chairman and chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum, said he thinks current North American oil production could be doubled in the next 25 years. “The resource is there and the technology is there,” he said in an interview.

PFC Energy, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant, said in a recent memo to clients that U.S. oil production could rise 20% by 2020 to 6.7 million barrels a day.......

.....Anadarko on Monday said that results from 11 recent wells in the Wattenberg field have given it confidence that it can drill between 1,200 and 2,700 wells in northeast Colorado. It plans to drill about 160 wells next year.

Based on its early results, it expects its wells will ultimately yield between 500 million and 1.5 billion barrels of oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas. Finding a billion barrel field is extremely rare. Only a handful of billion barrel fields have ever been found in the U.S.

The Wattenberg field was discovered in 1970 and is already one of the 20 largest oil and gas fields in the U.S., according to the Energy Department. This is based on an estimate of the amount of reserves, or oil and gas that can be economically recovered, in these fields.

Recently, companies such as Anadarko and Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. and Noble Energy Inc. have been applying horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing in the Wattenberg, breathing new life into the field and leading to a reappraisal of its future oil and gas potential. Anadarko says it expects its production from the region to grow at a compound annual rate of 20% between 2010 and 2012. It produced about 72,400 barrels of oil equivalents there in the last quarter....."
http://www.airaviationnews.com/hat/anad ... oil-tally/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Maybe we should focus on maintaining the ones we already have before okay-ing new ones.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/29777592/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure thing, Appa.

That's comical TMan. So one can't be for developing our natural resources if they are also required to develop them in a responsible manner? You know, like maintain the equipment so as not to unnecessarily cause an adverse effect to the surrounding residents whether they be human, flora or fauna? That myopic view from both sides of the argument is the reason we're in this current situation to begin with....misguided environmental policies implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to what is essentially, at times, criminal negligence on the part of poor performers tainting an entire industry. But keep supporting the status quo mentality....it's worked so far...