Political cartoons

[Adam White]

Oh, the irony.

[remc86007]

There is nothing "commonsense" about increasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

or allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to take land from Americans for a pipeline that may very well not be economically viable to operate in a few decades...but I guess giving land to foreigners is a good start to making America great again...

[BridgeTroll]

There is nothing "commonsense" about increasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

or allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to take land from Americans for a pipeline that may very well not be economically viable to operate in a few decades...but I guess giving land to foreigners is a good start to making America great again...

However a pipeline might be the safest, most efficient manner to transport a product that ultimately will be transported...  Besides... the bear is smiling and holding a balloon and there is a unicorn with a rainbow... 

[finehoe]

The oil from that pipeline will go to China, not the US.

[BridgeTroll]

The oil from that pipeline will go to China, not the US.

By train?  By truck?

[UNFurbanist]

By ship. That's the plan...

[remc86007]

There is nothing "commonsense" about increasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

or allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to take land from Americans for a pipeline that may very well not be economically viable to operate in a few decades...but I guess giving land to foreigners is a good start to making America great again...

However a pipeline might be the safest, most efficient manner to transport a product that ultimately will be transported...  Besides... the bear is smiling and holding a balloon and there is a unicorn with a rainbow... 

But would it ultimately be transported? I think the argument is that if we stop increasing supply the price will naturally climb and the world will "naturally" become less dependent on fossil fuels.

[JaxJersey-licious]

However a pipeline might be the safest, most efficient manner to transport a product that ultimately will be transported...  Besides... the bear is smiling and holding a balloon and there is a unicorn with a rainbow... 

That's exactly what Rex Tillerson used to tell himself every morning to get him to drag his ass to the office.

[bill]

There is nothing "commonsense" about increasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

or allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to take land from Americans for a pipeline that may very well not be economically viable to operate in a few decades...but I guess giving land to foreigners is a good start to making America great again...

However a pipeline might be the safest, most efficient manner to transport a product that ultimately will be transported...  Besides... the bear is smiling and holding a balloon and there is a unicorn with a rainbow... 

But would it ultimately be transported? I think the argument is that if we stop increasing supply the price will naturally climb and the world will "naturally" become less dependent on fossil fuels.

Dumb. If the price goes up then production is increased. Common sense or econ 101.

[remc86007]

There is nothing "commonsense" about increasing our reliance on fossil fuels.

or allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to take land from Americans for a pipeline that may very well not be economically viable to operate in a few decades...but I guess giving land to foreigners is a good start to making America great again...

However a pipeline might be the safest, most efficient manner to transport a product that ultimately will be transported...  Besides... the bear is smiling and holding a balloon and there is a unicorn with a rainbow... 

But would it ultimately be transported? I think the argument is that if we stop increasing supply the price will naturally climb and the world will "naturally" become less dependent on fossil fuels.

Dumb. If the price goes up then production is increased. Common sense or econ 101.

That's not what I got from "econ 101."

If the supply curve shifts to the left (or rather, doesn't shift to the right, which is what I am proposing would happen if the pipeline were not built) there will be a higher price and lower quantity (see graph in hyperlink below). Sure, new entrants may decide to enter the market (or OPEC will simply open the tap) and thus push the price and quantity back to their original equilibrium, but if that is to be assumed, then your suggestion, too, is moot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DdQ35laFFvw/UbREO0GUYKI/AAAAAAAAAvc/mCDVEfWNDU8/s1600/supply_curve_shifts_left.jpg

[bill]

You obviously do not have common sense or your econ 101 was horrible. Either way this basic tenet seems out of your grasp.

[remc86007]

You obviously do not have common sense or your econ 101 was horrible. Either way this basic tenet seems out of your grasp.

Explain it to me then. Please.

[bill]

I will try and keep it simple. If the cost of a commodity goes up and there is room for profit, then more capital will be used to exploit that delta. If oil prices go beyond the price of production then there will be more production. Hence more oil and if demand(or supply) does not meet equilibrium then there will be flow from capital and resources back and forth. Its why oil never stays at 130 or 30 bucks per bbl.   

[BridgeTroll]

By ship. That's the plan...

I don't recall many oil tankers in North Dakota... perhaps a canal?

[BridgeTroll]