Page 20 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #191
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by WhyteRash View Post
    so why dont they build a refinery there?
    The reason they don't want to build a refinery there (in fact, the reason they haven't built any refineries anywhere for about 20 years) is because they know it isn't worth investing in oil infrastructure at this late stage. But then they have the audacity to ask the government to boot people out of their homes for this...

  2. #192
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Asserting eminent domain to force the pipeline through and ousting people from their homes and further damaging the environment just for the profit of the oil companies would be shameful in and of itself, but honestly, wouldn't it also be like investing big in VHS tapes in 2004 too? This is last century's source of power. Yeah, we still need fossil fuels at the moment, but any fool can see that we're in the last days of oil. We should be focusing our effort on what's next, not what is wrapping up now.
    Would you please cite a credible source of this project "ousting people from their homes." I will cite the FEIS put out by the state department:

    Homes and residences within 25 feet of the ROW would likely experience many temporary inconveniences during the construction period (typically 7 to 30 days) including disruptions to privacy and property ingress or egress.
    According to the FEIS there are 28 homes/residences are within 25 feet of the ROW (right of way). I see no evidence of ousting people from their homes. Temporary inconvenience (for a week to one month) from construction related activity is not ousting someone from their home by any stretch of the imagination.
    Last edited by drz-400; 01-21-12 at 09:13 PM.

  3. #193
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Would you please cite a credible source of this project "ousting people from their homes." I will cite the FEIS put out by the state department:

    According to the FEIS there are 28 homes/residences are within 25 feet of the ROW (right of way).
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us...pagewanted=all

  4. #194
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Read the article but did not see any mention of the company attempting to oust people from their homes. They have been trying to aquire land easements, but certainly have not tried to force someone from their house.

  5. #195
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Read the article but did not see any mention of the company attempting to oust people from their homes. They have been trying to aquire land easements, but certainly have not tried to force someone from their house.
    Yeah, that's probably true that many of the people could choose to just live next to an oil pipeline if they wanted... But forcing somebody to let you build a pipeline across their land with eminent domain definitely amounts to forcing many of them to move out. Nobody wants to look out their window and see some monstrosity like that.

  6. #196
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yeah, that's probably true that many of the people could choose to just live next to an oil pipeline if they wanted... But forcing somebody to let you build a pipeline across their land with eminent domain definitely amounts to forcing many of them to move out. Nobody wants to look out their window and see some monstrosity like that.
    Look at what? The majority of the pipeline is below ground.

  7. #197
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Look at what? The majority of the pipeline is below ground.
    Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is. But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil... Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.

  8. #198
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is.
    There is a substantial need for the project, and it will benefit more than just the oil company as I have said elsewhere. From the purpose and need section of the FEIS:

    The primary purpose of the proposed Project is to provide the infrastructure necessary to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin heavy crude oil from the U.S. border with Canada to delivery points in Texas in response to the market demand of Gulf Coast refineries for heavy crude oil. This market demand is driven by the need of the refiners to replace declining feed stocks of heavy crude oil obtained from other foreign sources with crude oil from a more stable and reliable source.
    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil...
    We all could potentially have a meteor hit our roof too. Why don't you quantify the danger? I have read some portions of the EIS so I know what the chances of a large spill are. Historically, we could look at the other active portions of the keystone pipeline to see. From the FEIS:

    The existing Keystone Oil Pipeline System has experienced 14 spills since it began operation in June 2010. The spills occurred at fittings and seals at pump or valve stations and did not involve the actual pipeline. Twelve of the spills remained entirely within the confines of the pump and valve stations. Of those spills, 7 were 10 gallons or less, 4 were 100 gallons or less, 2 were between 400 and 500 gallons, and 1 was 21,000 gallons.
    Note: None have actually occurred along the actual pipeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
    It will not go right through someones living room. The construction company could potentially hit some lines, that is why they would do some surveying beforehand. This is basic stuff and would be ironed out before something is built. Also, the only parts above ground are the structures such as pumping facilities, tanks, etc.
    Last edited by drz-400; 01-21-12 at 10:51 PM.

  9. #199
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is. But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil... Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
    When the various proposed high speed rail projects the current administration is pressing (you know in the stimulus bill?) progress are you going to be so vehemently against eminent domain for their construction? Are they also considered ‘substantial national interest’ even to those in other states who will NEVER use them? Also consider these will not be constructed below ground so there is a high probability they will have to ‘look out their window and see some monstrosity like that’.

  10. #200
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    There is a substantial need for the project, and it will benefit more than just the oil company as I have said elsewhere. From the purpose and need section of the FEIS:
    Not sure how you think that helps anybody but the oil company. Pollution hurts everybody, oil dependency hurts everybody, but the oil company makes more money.

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    We all could potentially have a meteor hit our roof too. Why don't you quantify the danger? I have read some portions of the EIS so I know what the chances of a large spill are. Historically, we could look at the other active portions of the keystone pipeline to see. From the FEIS:
    So yeah, picture 21,000 gallons of oil spilling under your yard.... Bad scene.

    But, that's just this exact pipeline. They've had many, much bigger, pipeline oil spills in the US just in the past few years. For example, in Alaska the Prudhoe Bay pipeline had a spill of 267,000 gallons in 2006. In 2010 800,000 gallons spilled from a pipeline in Michigan. In Alaska's Kenai National Refuge they've had 350 different spills now, including one of 228,000 gallons. Or, if we want to talk about pipeline spills in general, lets talk about the Kolva River oil spill in Russia at 84,000,000 gallons.

    These aren't freak occurrences. In fact the majority of oil spilled worldwide is from pipelines.

Page 20 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •