Clean Energy or Dirty Money? Jesse Ventura Vs. the Keystone Pipeline

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has avoided taking sides on the Keystone-XL Pipeline debate for years, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play politician and avoid the question! Today, myself and my Vigilant Producer Alex Logan lay out the hard facts on the actual jobs that Keystone would create versus what the future of America would look like if we'd switch to renewable energy.

What do you think of the Pipeline?

a reply to: JesseVentura

I think the pipeline is a direct threat to the First People and their heritage as well as having the distinction of threatening the water shed for much of the United States. Also oil sands are a crappy crude resource. Messy to extract and environmentally disastrous to recover. Good show Jess.

a reply to: mymymy At least the guy put a show together and talks about subjects that might counter what people are told through the media. I think he's a pretty stand up guy for it.

a reply to: ugmold

On ANY other thread if the OP posted and never returned there would be 3 pages of people complaining about it, why does THIS guy get a pass?

Is it too much to ask for a little interaction?

a reply to: korath

It IS interesting, but I'd like to be able to ask a few questions and get a few answers. I don't think that's too much to ask for

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: ugmold

On ANY other thread if the OP posted and never returned there would be 3 pages of people complaining about it, why does THIS guy get a pass?

Is it too much to ask for a little interaction?

a reply to: korath

It IS interesting, but I'd like to be able to ask a few questions and get a few answers. I don't think that's too much to ask for

You are still not asking a question, just complaining. Why do expect an answer? Perhaps that is the problem.

The cost of this man made river of sludge could fund 6 thorium reactors.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: ugmold

On ANY other thread if the OP posted and never returned there would be 3 pages of people complaining about it, why does THIS guy get a pass?

Is it too much to ask for a little interaction?

a reply to: korath

It IS interesting, but I'd like to be able to ask a few questions and get a few answers. I don't think that's too much to ask for

One question is how does he get away with saying that money spent on the pipeline can be used in some other way?

That shows a less than elementary level of understanding concerning how the pipeline is to be paid for and maintained - as if the Feds were paying for it.
No subsidies would go to it that aren't already going to oil companies. Why doesn't he rail about that? I mean, that's far more than the cost of the pipeline.

Harte

I agree fully.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: JesseVentura

I think the pipeline is a direct threat to the First People and their heritage as well as having the distinction of threatening the water shed for much of the United States. Also oil sands are a crappy crude resource. Messy to extract and environmentally disastrous to recover. Good show Jess.

The oil sands will be tapped whether you like it or not, whenever it is profitable to do so.

With no pipeline, the product will be shipped by rail.

Are you under the impression that rail shipment is safer that pipeline for petroleum?

Harte

Not necessarily. I think we shouldn't be shipping it at all. If it's too dangerous to go on the rail, then don't allow it on.

Is that the excuse to build this pipeline? That it'll go by train otherwise? How about not sending it at all, and keeping it in our country and using it here instead of sending it halfway around the world where you won't see any of it. Better still- how about better alternative energy and making oil what it should be- an archaic thing saved for our history books.

originally posted by: Harte
The oil sands will be tapped whether you like it or not, whenever it is profitable to do so.

With no pipeline, the product will be shipped by rail.

Are you under the impression that rail shipment is safer that pipeline for petroleum?

Harte

originally posted by: JesseVentura
Not necessarily. I think we shouldn't be shipping it at all. If it's too dangerous to go on the rail, then don't allow it on.

Is that the excuse to build this pipeline? That it'll go by train otherwise? How about not sending it at all, and keeping it in our country and using it here instead of sending it halfway around the world where you won't see any of it. Better still- how about better alternative energy and making oil what it should be- an archaic thing saved for our history books.

If you want to keep it in the US, you'll have to get it here somehow.

All oil shipments by rail are more dangerous than by pipeline.

Alternative energy would be great. However, currently the cost is greater.

You're welcome to pay whatever you want for your own energy. Don't expect everyone else to do the same just because you don't like petroleum. The world doesn't work that way.

Harte

We'll find out in the Paris talks what will happen to the Tar Sands extraction and the Keystone pipeline.

Hillary has gone from pro to con, Obama is just waiting to make the announcement and the Canadian government has gone from 'We won't take no for an answer' to 'We will abide by the decision made by America'.

It's not American Tar sands. It's Canadian.

(and those 40,000 new jobs are temporary)

originally posted by: masqua
We'll find out in the Paris talks what will happen to the Tar Sands extraction and the Keystone pipeline.

Hillary has gone from pro to con, Obama is just waiting to make the announcement and the Canadian government has gone from 'We won't take no for an answer' to 'We will abide by the decision made by America'.

It's not American Tar sands. It's Canadian.

(and those 40,000 new jobs are temporary)

And oil is fungible, so it doesn't matter whether the Keystone is approved or not.

If it is economical to develop the tar sands, the oil there will be pumped out and shipped, one way or the other.

Harte

The "jobs Keystone would create" are a complete myth.

It's been shown that only 32 people will be needed in full time capacities once the pipeline is finished.

As far as the jobs building the pipeline, these are jobs for highly skilled pipeline builders who would simply be working on other pipelines if not building Keystone. These jobs take years of training to get into, and would not be "new jobs" created overnight, as Republicans and the right wingers love to tout.

The sole reason for building the pipeline is to enrich the Koch Brothers, who are funding most of the pro pipeline politicians.

originally posted by: babybunnies
The "jobs Keystone would create" are a complete myth.

It's been shown that only 32 people will be needed in full time capacities once the pipeline is finished.

As far as the jobs building the pipeline, these are jobs for highly skilled pipeline builders who would simply be working on other pipelines if not building Keystone. These jobs take years of training to get into, and would not be "new jobs" created overnight, as Republicans and the right wingers love to tout.

The sole reason for building the pipeline is to enrich the Koch Brothers, who are funding most of the pro pipeline politicians.

Construction jobs would be temporary, for sure.

However, another reliable source of crude would help preserve a lot of jobs like those at refineries and local businesses around them.

However, I agree that politicians on both sides have overstated the economic impact of the pipeline.
You'll note that This supposed jobs angle wasn't what I was talking about.

My point was the oil sands will be developed with or without the pipeline. They'll either pipe it to the West coast with a new pipeline and ship it to China, or send it via rail. Or tanker trucks (less likely.)

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Just a guess, mind you, but I'd bet the growing demand for renewable energy (jobs, jobs, jobs) will soon swamp the market. At least, I've noted some news stories hinting such a thing.

Just like whale oil and coal, mineral oil will also slowly decline as new technologies begin to take effect. Electric cars will someday have batteries that allow distant travel and be able to plug in everywhere one parks. Electric cars can make a hot Corvette look like a horse and buggy from the stop light.

No... it won't be quick, but it is inevitable. Just a matter of time.

ETA: Even the Rockefellers are getting into divestment from oil, but investors say it could take 5 years to fully remove oneself from what used to be a source for wealth. It's a good article to see what the trend is.

About the Canadian Oil Sands in Alberta, it seems more bad news is on the horizon:

The oilpatch will be singing the blues this week, as a large number of energy companies prepare to release earnings for the summer quarter, a period when the price of crude plumbed multi-year lows.
"We had oil go up to $60 and back down to $40 and most of that drop happened during the quarter," said Martin Pelletier, a portfolio manager with TriVest Wealth Counsel.

Pelletier expects the numbers to be the worst since the financial crisis in 2009.

www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: JesseVentura

Oil and all about oil is always link to dirty money, but what I find laughable is how politicians are now staying in the side lines when it comes to oil vs renewable energy, it seems that the topic of the day is clima change, that it seems to become if legislated the next profitable bubble in the markets.

How can politicians still back the keystone pipe line while they are claiming to be part of the clima change movement of a cleaner earth with renewable energy, this is just hilarious.