Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (26551)	6/9/2011 11:26:20 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 86352

Facts take a hit in debate over Keystone pipeline Not exactly news considering the source of the comments (Bill McKibben and James Hansen).

To: Eric who wrote (26551)	6/9/2011 6:03:55 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86352

but this is both an extreme overestimate based on flawed assumptions and irrelevant to the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if the pipeline is built and in service for 100 years, it’s unlikely to lead to an increase of even 1/100th of that amount. And that is compared to assuming that if that pipeline isn't built that the resources will go unused, and that if they are unused you don't have any increase in the overall net utilization of other fossil fuel sources. Both ideas are far from safe assumptions. For an example of why the first idea isn't save to assume - “The Canadian oil sands will continue to be developed irrespective of whether the pipeline goes ahead,” said Russell K. Girling, the president and chief executive of TransCanada, the company behind the $7 billion project. nytimes.com Message 27420733