Oil is far far from a dying technology and projects show alot more will be needed. Were on course for anywhere from 10-15 billion or more humans and we all will not be buying electric cars. I will take my dying 2015 370z anyday.
we can talk about our cars today... i also drive a revo-tuned, custom fuel pumped, turbo gasoline car today... but in 10 years i'll probably have an electric and would seriously ponder why someone just spent 400k on a gasoline Porsche (if those are still available).. when my electric outperforms it in every way possible.. because physics impose limitations and you can only push a gasoline car so far. are you saying you wouldn't drive one of these? http://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/i8 again, talking about our cars today is all good.. but in 10 years? i doubt a notion of an electric car will be a nissan leaf or model s. the industry will change, electric cars and stations are going to be everywhere ... and one way or another we will say goodbye to the gasoline engine. as an investor of 8 billion i have to project my roi at least 10 years into the future... and what do i see... a project that is a waste and my roi is going to be significantly lower, if i invested into a future-facing project. that's pretty simple. but the money is coming from those that have too much vested already. so yeah, they are starting up a meaningless war over a pipe... which contributes nothing and is not "safe" based on everything i've read so far. the only point is.. they need to have or they are at a serious loss. doesn't take a much to figure out the honest reason behind all this. to me that's just shitty business structure and manipulation ... to that effect i say fuck transcanada and their moronic project. i hope they lose. cheers.
I have no interest in any non gas powered or hybrid at this point...neither does the majority of drivers world wide. As we speak most likely a billion or more souls are pouring gasoline of some sort into there car. Jets require gas, generators require gas, power plants require gas. There is nothing on the horizon that beats gas in terms of price, and power that comes out of it per unit of measure so far. You guys are like the flying car pipe dream of the last century. Decades of predictions and strangely I still am pouring gas into my car. My car still has 4 wheels and the same original concept is still in use today as it was 20 years ago. Untill something replaces lithium ion technology which came out in the 1980s you can forget it. You talk about gas engines reaching there limit. They continue to increase in MPG and performance. Compare todays cars to cars of 10 years ago and there dramatically better in just about every way. Go back to the 1990s when a Twin Turbo 3000GT say was pumping out 300 horses. Today we have that new Mustang that does that with a 4 banger with a Turbo strapped to it. Also you theory is sorta skewed when last year was a record breaking number of Trucks and SUVs sold. In fact its more then 50% of all sales.
i would say that there is a huge difference between flying cars and electric cars. by that rationale you remind me of someone sticking to their true and tried horse and buggy while t-1 is hitting mass production. if you need last years data to gauge future projections, that's fine. but again, i wasn't talking about today... as an investor i am interested in at least a 10 year projection to get my return (for a project of that size). if we only look at electric cars then the trend is clear: http://electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/20952/pid/20952 whether you and i like gasoline cars makes little difference. the changes is going to take place... and given the massive changes in the EV market in the last 5 years, next 10 will be even more dramatic. that's real and backed by data... unlike flying cars.
I guess thats why the majority of sales in the US which is the worlds largest market for those things were SUVs and Trucks right? I guess there all living in the past. Every singular sale of someone buying something other then a electric are archaic rejects right? Yea keep smoking whatever your smoking. At most it will be a blend of hybrids, straight gas, and electric like it is today. Your arguement reminds me of the idiot alternative energy people. With the most liberal President in history pushing the most eco agenda that has been pushed Solar is still a tiny tiny fraction and still can not beat traditional power sources.
no that's what's going on today and i am not arguing that point. not sure if you are going to get this, but i'll try again. as investor, i project my ROI (return on investment) based on when i expect to get that return from a construction project of 8 bill... will probably take a "couple" of years to complete. (so i put in 8 bil and hopefully when all said and done, i'll be getting a lot more back... that's the idea usually). so at the end of the this particular project i will have a pipe, which may or may not be obsolete within 20 years. this is what i mean by investing in the past. now if you are TransCanada or another oil company that is paying certain politicians to think a certain way: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582 (like this big proponent of keystone xl, who got half a mil from oil & gas) well... in this case you already have a lot to gain from the construction of the said pipe, even if in 20 years it dies down. (you are already invested in project, it would hurt tremendously to go back now). so all their b.s. about "job creation" and environmental safety can be thrown out the window. if it's not yet clear why they are pushing so hard to build that pipe, then i'll make it very simple: corporate profits. regardless of how useless or unsafe this pipe actually is. to that i say again.. fuck them and their oil pipe. as someone said, the oil will get there one way or another... if they wanted to build something slightly more future-facing, like a safer delivery method than a pipe which is clearly not safe from the "safety" report they provided, or invest 8 bil into thinking about how they can protect oil tankers and truck drivers... i'd be all for it.
Based on these responses, I assume you both fully support and encourage government seizure of private property? Because my family could have used a veto to stop the government from seizing our property to build similar pipelines through it. But I guess as long as you hate on anything Obama aka Hitler does, it's probably by definition pro-freedom+liberty.
actually I'm an anarchist and yuri is almost one. Don't know how you could have possibly gathered that from what we said.
Who's property do you suppose the pipeline would be built on if Obama did not veto the bill? Public property lol? If Obama aka das fuhrer (as you know his as) did not veto the bill and instead allowed the pipeline is to be built, government WILL seize private property through eminent domain to do so. Otherwise there is no physical way to build a pipeline of such magnitude. None. I've witnessed eminent domain enforced on my family's property to build such pipelines. It can and will happen. The oil company offered my father $50k to build two pipelines thru his property. He refused because he does not need the money. He only wants his land. Now he gets no money + 2 pipelines through it. So if you agree the president should have allowed this pipeline to be built-- one that can only be built through the government seizure of private property-- then logically you support government seizure of private property. But you said you're an anarchist, so that would be most hypocritical to insinuate Obama was in the wrong to veto this bill.
This is a complex issue. You are right. The government has no right to take land from.civilians. This is actually illegal. Emminent domain isn't a real thing. You have the legal right to shoot cops who try to enforce it -yuri
Ya know what, you have made an extremely valid point that I did not think about before. I don't know how that slipped my mind but I have been fucked up today, not that it is an excuse for ignorance. I can see what you are saying and agree. I still don't agree with why he enacted the veto but I guess it does potentially have a good side effect of saving private property rights.
Maybe the land owners can be compensated? I thought someone said trains already ship it? Well train tracks are a perfect place for pipeline, its probably already government land granted to the railway. But stealing it for the greater is theft, like forcing electric cars on the majority is. Besides where do you electric car pushing people think all this electricity comes from, sun, wind? Not even close. What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal. In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were Coal 39% Hydropower 7% Other Renewable 6% Biomass 1.48% Wind 4.13% Petroleum 1% Im pretty sure burning wood at this point produces more electricity than the sun. Electric cars no doubt will evolve and be more efficient, but oil at this point is 1000x more efficient and 10x more cleaner than electricity. As has already been stated, gasoline cars are becoming more and more efficient and clean. Our air is cleaner today than 10 years ago and more oil is being used than ever. Sure we can have electric cars but the air will be much worse. Can't at this point have it both ways. My guess is something else besides electricity will be our next fuel.
I just want to ask WHY the Canadian government won't allow a pipeline across their pristine plains and opt instead to move THEIR CANADIAN tar sands through our heartland instead? Also, because these ARE Canadian owned tar sands in the pipeline which will be moved down to New Or leans to then be shipped to CHINA why should WE as a Nation allow what the Canadians themselves are loathe to do? This is a no brainer.
Read up on the train disaster up in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. You really think that's the better way to move it? Because as they say, it will be shipped one way or another.
i wish you would go do that, go shoot at some cops and then yell how your civil rights are being violated. that would be sofa king awesome
This is usually how the negotiations start. The oil company sends a letter saying they want to build a pipeline through your land, and offers an initial one-time buy out fee. This aount I'm sure can vary, but depending on how much land they will use, they offered 20-25$k per pipeline. Which is shit when you figure a property initially worth 250$k will be virtually useless (for hunting purposes) and un-sellable afterward. The more you refuse, the lower the buy-out offer gets until they simply enact eminent domain and offer you no compensation. Since he didn't want the money, my father's approach was to just keep refusing and refusing, dragging out the process for as long as possible costing the oil company more and more in lawyer fees to enact eminent domain.
It's unconstitutional for the government to use eminent domain to take a property without compensating the owner. I agree it sucks when it's your land being bought when you didn't want to sell but it's a necessary evil that is being abused more and more frequently. And putting a pipeline across property doesn't ruin it for hunting.
I watched the youtube videos of this. Unbelievable! I can't understand how I missed it when it happened back in 2013.