5 ms·

On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. On the other hand he’s asking/telling OPEC to pump out more… Canada is will

by mc32 5y ago

On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. On the other hand he’s asking/telling OPEC to pump out more… Canada is willing but we’re closing pipelines. And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II.

Anechoic 5y ago
On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. By "he" I presume you're referring to the Biden administration. What "pipelines" have they closed? Biden pulled the permit for the Keystone XL, but that's not so much closing a pipeline as prohibiting a new one from being build (maybe you were including that under the umbrella of "closing"?). The other Keystone pipelines are still operating. There is also news about possibility closing the Line 5 pipeline, but that hasn't happened and he recently indicated that he had no intention of closing it. Is there another (or multiple other) pipelines that have been shutdown by the administration? A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines.
- satronaut 5y ago
  "what pipelines did he close?" then you say "A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines". There's 2 rite there. Oil prices go up, choke supply by closing down 2 pipelines, and then complain/blame trump that prices are going up. Please explain your thought process joebiden.info
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    Keystone XL was (as the previous comment says) not a closure, but preventing new building. Line 5 is not something Biden closed. How are you counting a pipeline that Biden didn’t close and Biden has no plans to shutdown, as a closure? I don’t understand how you get to 2 closures.
    - satronaut 5y ago
      Keystone's construction was shut down. It was going to be operational and now it's not due to an executive order that biden signed day 1 in office. That's shutting down a pipeline. Line 5 is very much still possible to be shut down due to the democratic party's goal of creating a false energy shortage. Whitmer keeps complaining about it and I'm sure that harris and pelosi will tell biden to cancel it and he'll just go "okay". joebiden.info
      - briffle 5y ago
        The Trump administration shut down (denied permits and licensing) 3 times for a natural gas import/export Terminal that was going to be built in Coos Bay Oregon, to connect to the 4' pipeline the feeds Oregon and California. I guess they hate energy too...
      - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
        Line 5 would impact prices a few cents in Michigan- believe it or not most of the oil goes from Canada, across MI and back into Canada. I'm fine with shutting it down. Canada can run their own "landlocked" pipeline to Sarnia.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - edaemon 5y ago
    The Keystone XL pipeline has never been operational; you can't close something that never opened. Enbridge Line 5 hasn't closed, and the closure order (which Enbridge has refused to follow) came from the Michigan Governor, not the Biden administration.
dntrkv 5y ago
You really have no ability to differentiate between those things? Preventing new pipelines from being built == long term effects Nord Stream == long term effects Asking OPEC to supply more gas for our current needs == short term effects Building pipelines is a commitment to consume more fossil fuels in the future. Whereas, increasing production to lower prices in a time of global shortages of every kind, is not that. Stop trying to equate two completely different things. They're not even in the same ballpark.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  Pipelines lower costs. To the extent that that's bad, it's because it makes fuel less expensive, so people buy less efficient vehicles that use more fuel. It's the same reason why a carbon tax is a means to reduce CO2. The fact that the pipelines are in the future makes them less effective at reducing CO2. You want people to buy hybrids and electric cars right now, not wait until years from now. Lowering the present day price of gas is the worst thing to do. If people are struggling then cut some of the pork and send more stimulus checks instead. Heck, do a carbon tax and refund all the money -- the average person comes out ahead because some of the tax gets paid by corporations and all the money goes to individuals.
vinay427 5y ago
> And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II. There are more than enough voices within Europe doing that already. The US simply adds to the mix, not in opposition to “Europe.” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210119IPR95904/parliament-demands-significantly-tighter-eu-sanctions-against-russia https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210119IP... > Following years of deteriorating relations, MEPs stress the importance of critically reviewing cooperation with Russia in various foreign policy platforms and on projects such as Nord Stream 2. They call on the EU to immediately stop the completion of the controversial pipeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream > The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was also opposed by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, former U.S. President Donald Trump, the European Council President Donald Tusk and British foreign minister Boris Johnson.[179][180] Tusk has said that Nord Stream 2 is not in the EU's interests.
- mc32 5y ago
  I can understand the Polish opposition. Trump probably wanted to look tough in the face of ‘Russia’ accusations which so far have not been proven. Boris was just jockeying -a more energy source diversified Europe is less dependence on the UK. But US complaining about Nordstream makes as much sense as Russia complaining about the US building the XL pipeline or drilling in the ANWR. It’s meddling for kicks.

by mc32 5y ago

Anechoic 5y ago

On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. By "he" I presume you're referring to the Biden administration. What "pipelines" have they closed? Biden pulled the permit for the Keystone XL, but that's not so much closing a pipeline as prohibiting a new one from being build (maybe you were including that under the umbrella of "closing"?). The other Keystone pipelines are still operating. There is also news about possibility closing the Line 5 pipeline, but that hasn't happened and he recently indicated that he had no intention of closing it. Is there another (or multiple other) pipelines that have been shutdown by the administration? A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines.

satronaut 5y ago
"what pipelines did he close?" then you say "A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines". There's 2 rite there. Oil prices go up, choke supply by closing down 2 pipelines, and then complain/blame trump that prices are going up. Please explain your thought process joebiden.info
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Keystone XL was (as the previous comment says) not a closure, but preventing new building. Line 5 is not something Biden closed. How are you counting a pipeline that Biden didn’t close and Biden has no plans to shutdown, as a closure? I don’t understand how you get to 2 closures.
  - satronaut 5y ago
    Keystone's construction was shut down. It was going to be operational and now it's not due to an executive order that biden signed day 1 in office. That's shutting down a pipeline. Line 5 is very much still possible to be shut down due to the democratic party's goal of creating a false energy shortage. Whitmer keeps complaining about it and I'm sure that harris and pelosi will tell biden to cancel it and he'll just go "okay". joebiden.info
    - briffle 5y ago
      The Trump administration shut down (denied permits and licensing) 3 times for a natural gas import/export Terminal that was going to be built in Coos Bay Oregon, to connect to the 4' pipeline the feeds Oregon and California. I guess they hate energy too...
    - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
      Line 5 would impact prices a few cents in Michigan- believe it or not most of the oil goes from Canada, across MI and back into Canada. I'm fine with shutting it down. Canada can run their own "landlocked" pipeline to Sarnia.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- edaemon 5y ago
  The Keystone XL pipeline has never been operational; you can't close something that never opened. Enbridge Line 5 hasn't closed, and the closure order (which Enbridge has refused to follow) came from the Michigan Governor, not the Biden administration.

dntrkv 5y ago

You really have no ability to differentiate between those things? Preventing new pipelines from being built == long term effects Nord Stream == long term effects Asking OPEC to supply more gas for our current needs == short term effects Building pipelines is a commitment to consume more fossil fuels in the future. Whereas, increasing production to lower prices in a time of global shortages of every kind, is not that. Stop trying to equate two completely different things. They're not even in the same ballpark.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Pipelines lower costs. To the extent that that's bad, it's because it makes fuel less expensive, so people buy less efficient vehicles that use more fuel. It's the same reason why a carbon tax is a means to reduce CO2. The fact that the pipelines are in the future makes them less effective at reducing CO2. You want people to buy hybrids and electric cars right now, not wait until years from now. Lowering the present day price of gas is the worst thing to do. If people are struggling then cut some of the pork and send more stimulus checks instead. Heck, do a carbon tax and refund all the money -- the average person comes out ahead because some of the tax gets paid by corporations and all the money goes to individuals.

vinay427 5y ago

> And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II. There are more than enough voices within Europe doing that already. The US simply adds to the mix, not in opposition to “Europe.” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210119IPR95904/parliament-demands-significantly-tighter-eu-sanctions-against-russia https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210119IP... > Following years of deteriorating relations, MEPs stress the importance of critically reviewing cooperation with Russia in various foreign policy platforms and on projects such as Nord Stream 2. They call on the EU to immediately stop the completion of the controversial pipeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream > The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was also opposed by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, former U.S. President Donald Trump, the European Council President Donald Tusk and British foreign minister Boris Johnson.[179][180] Tusk has said that Nord Stream 2 is not in the EU's interests.

mc32 5y ago
I can understand the Polish opposition. Trump probably wanted to look tough in the face of ‘Russia’ accusations which so far have not been proven. Boris was just jockeying -a more energy source diversified Europe is less dependence on the UK. But US complaining about Nordstream makes as much sense as Russia complaining about the US building the XL pipeline or drilling in the ANWR. It’s meddling for kicks.