Page 36 of 83 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #351
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    I did not state the protesters were amongst those directly impacted...nor did I imply it in any way. I stated thousands would be impacted, and there were protests...that you somehow managed to blend the two together says more about the agenda you are holding, than my comment.
    Really?? Sounds like it to me:
    let alone the thousands who would be impacted directly by an approval...and voiced concern.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #352
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    It's both funny and sad that three years is not long enough to study a pipeline that will employ thousands of Americans, yet a 2,500 page, multi-billion dollar healthcare reform bill must be passed before we can find out what was in it.
    Though I see little humor in this, I agree it is sobering. Due to protests and guidelines designed to protect citizens, the Pipeline course was forced to take a new route which requires the studies to be re-evaluated if not redone. The "Three Years" encompass both the original study and the ongoing newer evaluation required for approval...though I hope you uunderstand this it is worth pointing out.

    The healthcare bill has nothing to do with this situation, but I understand by adding it to this discussion you feel your point has more impact.

  3. #353
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Though I see little humor in this, I agree it is sobering. Due to protests and guidelines designed to protect citizens, the Pipeline course was forced to take a new route which requires the studies to be re-evaluated if not redone. The "Three Years" encompass both the original study and the ongoing newer evaluation required for approval...though I hope you uunderstand this it is worth pointing out.

    The healthcare bill has nothing to do with this situation, but I understand by adding it to this discussion you feel your point has more impact.
    My point was that Obama and his Democrat minions don't have any problems rushing decisions when it is in their benefit, but delaying others they don't like until after the election.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  4. #354
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Really?? Sounds like it to me:
    Very well, if you feel the need to misunderstand my post, I cannot change that, nor do I feel it important enough to go further into explanation. Take from it what you will, but perhaps you might delve into the actual opinion stated rather than your interpretation of the wording.

  5. #355
    Debate MMA
    Prof. Peabody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-30-12 @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,361

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.

    Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it?

    As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!

    Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL - HUMAN EVENTS
    Caving to pressure from environmental groups, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the $7 billion-plus Keystone XL pipeline which would have carried 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Alberta oil sands to refineries along the US Gulf coast.

    No Keystone XL means Canadian crude will stay dirt cheap - MINING.com
    What environmental groups? Even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline. Was it caving to environmental groups or his big business buddy Warren Buffett?


    The Keystone pipeline was to carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. The average rail tank car carries about 30,000 gallons. 700,000 X 42 = 29,400,000 gallons of oil now divide that by 30,000 and you get 980 oil tank cars a day. Sounds like Berkshire Hathaway Inc is going to be in for a massive profit from the cancellation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

    So let's recap, Environmentalists choose the far more dangerous way of transporting oil over the safer pipeline way (really?) and the by product of that is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc should benefit to the tune of 980 oil tank cars a day at the expense of the environment when the inevitable accidents happen. It all fits in with the agenda nicely. "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Obama's now hand picked Energy Secretary Steven Chu back in 2008. Looks like they found that way there Steven.
    Last edited by Prof. Peabody; 01-25-12 at 12:05 PM.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

  6. #356
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    What environmental groups? Even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline. Was it caving to environmental groups or his big business buddy Warren Buffett?


    The Keystone pipeline was to carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. The average rail tank car carries about 30,000 gallons. 700,000 X 42 = 29,400,000 gallons of oil now divide that by 30,000 and you get 980 oil tank cars a day. Sounds like Berkshire Hathaway Inc is going to be in for a massive profit from the cancellation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

    So let's recap, Environmentalists choose the far more dangerous way of transporting oil over the safer pipeline way (really?) and the by product of that is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc should benefit to the tune of 980 oil tank cars a day at the expense of the environment when the inevitable accidents happen. It all fits in with the agenda nicely. "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Obama's now hand picked Energy Secretary Steven Chu back in 2008. Looks like they found that way there Steven.
    Can you link us to the data showing that TransCanada will ship over land if they can't get the pipeline? Because everything I've seen simply suggests that they will either go with another pipeline route or just deal with slower delivery via the exsisting pipeline.

  7. #357
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    240

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected - Jan. 18, 2012



    The story is just starting to break, but this is great news for people living in the regions that would be affected by this. The pipeline would have moved through very ecologically sensitive areas and the public was not consulted on this.

    Looks like the protesting paid off. It might still get the nod in further applications - and probably after the election - but at least for now the environment is that much safer.
    Thank God. I was beginning to think that the US would suffer through an invasion of 20,000+ jobs. Lord knows this president and his lowly subjects can't survive something like that!
    Last edited by Sunbelt; 01-25-12 at 12:09 PM.

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    The actual number that will be at least temporarily employed for the pipeline construction is between 3500 and 4200 people.. Its only carrying less than 700,000 barrels per day from Canada to Texas... by passing Mid West refineries.

    The Canadian oil companies are largely foreign owned and they won't build east and west pipelines or new refineries in Canada because they don't want to pay taxes to Canada which are higher for them than the obligations of the NAFTA agreement.

    This bitumen oil will be refined in a FREE TRADE ZONE in Texas and sold for export.

    Meanwhile, Canada is IMPORTING 43% of their crude from Nigeria, West Africa and Libya. Its created a problem for supplies going to Eastern Canada to the extent that a refinery in Montreal is closing.

    The short version is that if there is a supply disruption to Canada, they will suffer shortaages and hardship while still piping oil south thru the United States. The foreign owned Canadian oil companies, the Texas refiners and the ports will profit, but not the US or Canada.. Canada has effectly lost control of their natural resources.

  9. #359
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by sharon View Post
    The actual number that will be at least temporarily employed for the pipeline construction is between 3500 and 4200 people.. Its only carrying less than 700,000 barrels per day from Canada to Texas... by passing Mid West refineries.

    The Canadian oil companies are largely foreign owned and they won't build east and west pipelines or new refineries in Canada because they don't want to pay taxes to Canada which are higher for them than the obligations of the NAFTA agreement.

    This bitumen oil will be refined in a FREE TRADE ZONE in Texas and sold for export.

    Meanwhile, Canada is IMPORTING 43% of their crude from Nigeria, West Africa and Libya. Its created a problem for supplies going to Eastern Canada to the extent that a refinery in Montreal is closing.

    The short version is that if there is a supply disruption to Canada, they will suffer shortaages and hardship while still piping oil south thru the United States. The foreign owned Canadian oil companies, the Texas refiners and the ports will profit, but not the US or Canada.. Canada has effectly lost control of their natural resources.
    Of course the Canadian oil companies also don't want to deal with environmentalists in Canada. Why should they when then can just run their pipeline under OUR aquifers?

  10. #360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Of course the Canadian oil companies also don't want to deal with environmentalists in Canada. Why should they when then can just run their pipeline under OUR aquifers?
    Well.. if you look at a pipeline map of the US.. I don't think we have been too concerned about that in the past.. but on the other hand.. bitumen has the consistency of fudge and has to be diluted to flow.. and I am informed it takes more pipeline pressure.

    I don't really know what the trade-offs are...... but I am inclined to think the pipeline is a poor long term strategy... and more about a beneficial tax structure for the oil companies than a real benefit to either Canada or the US.

    It won't reduce the price at the pump, increase domestic supply or create 20,000 jobs.. That is political hype.. If an oil company can't move a mere 700,000 barrels a day with a small labor force, they need to get out of the business.

Page 36 of 83 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •