Page 52 of 83 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #511
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    [...] By the way, I'll put my 35 years of construction engineering experience up against hers any day.
    A debate is not a dick size contest, and I doubt anyone wants to volunteer to utilize the yardstick (or the micrometer, as the case may be) in order to determine the winner. Bottom line, it's the internet, you can be whatever you want to be... but to win an argument, you need a factual, rational post.

    Not my dick is bigger than your dick (or the related logical fallacy of appeal to authority), which see all too often from some around here.

  2. #512
    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 Karl View Post
    Excellent, since it so devalues all your other posts and claims in this thread

    What has happened here, folks, is the risk in quoting a number that one does not understand. The CIA/Wikipedia figure includes many things other than simply "crude oil", such as:
    "Note that oil production refers to the sum of barrels of crude oil extracted each day from drilling operations compounded with the equivalent production of natural gas liquids and refinery gains from domestic or imported petroleum prduction.[2]" (Wikipedia).

    If we look at Canada - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see two figures for Canada (2009):
    "Total Oil Production: 3.3 million BPD (production of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery process gain (loss))."
    "Crude Oil Production: 2.6 million BPD (includes lease condensate)"

    If we look at Canada - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see: "Of the 2.7 million bbl/d of crude produced in Canada in 2009, 1.35 million bbl/d of that derived from the oil sands of Alberta."

    The moral of this story is, when quoting figures, be sure what they actually represent.
    Well done...........

  3. #513
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?

  4. #514
    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 Karl View Post
    A debate is not a dick size contest, and I doubt anyone wants to volunteer to utilize the yardstick (or the micrometer, as the case may be) in order to determine the winner. Bottom line, it's the internet, you can be whatever you want to be... but to win an argument, you need a factual, rational post.

    Not my dick is bigger than your dick (or the related logical fallacy of appeal to authority), which see all too often from some around here.
    Then he shouldn't have asked. Take it up with AdamT.

    And yours is definitely not bigger.

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





  5. #515
    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 radcen View Post
    If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?
    Because this export pipeline takes advantage of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone in Texas..

  6. #516
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?
    Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.
    "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

  7. #517
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.
    Yeah, right.

  8. #518
    Educator Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    12-29-12 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.
    Impossible? You've been reading too many right-wing blogs.

    We are shutting down oil refineries, because there is too much capacity and existing refineries can produce much more product than they do. The need for additional refineries is a right-wing lie started during the last boom in oil prices. The source to look for is the Weekly Energy Report.

    weekly energy report - Bing

    U.S. Weekly Inputs & Utilization

    Originally Posted by radcen
    If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?
    That would be impossible, unless Prof. Peabody would lend us his WABAC Machine. The project that was rejected for future study was the Keystone XL project. The Keystone Pipeline already exists.

    The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen ("dilbit") from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the United States, which include refineries in Illinois, Cushing oil distribution hub in Oklahoma, and proposed connections to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas. It consists of the operational "Keystone Pipeline" (Phase 1) and "Keystone-Cushing Extension" (Phase 2), and two proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion segments. After the Keystone XL pipeline segments are completed, American crude oil would enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana and Cushing, Oklahoma.[1]

    The Keystone XL has faced lawsuits from oil refineries and criticism from environmentalists and some members of the United States Congress. The U.S. Department of State in 2010 extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest, and in November, 2011, President Obama postponed the decision until 2013. On November 30, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.[2]

    Keystone Pipeline

    TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that 'the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector'.[3] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[4] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[5]

    On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[6] However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[7] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[8] The pipeline became operational in June 2010.[9]
    Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The purple are the existing Keystone pipelines. The reason they want to go to the gulf is because that's where many of the oil refineries are in Texas.


  9. #519
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.
    Right

    So instead of building a refinery in Alberta which would be less enviromentally damaging then the strip mining done for some oil sand production, and would easily pass environmental regulations, they will instead build two pipelines one to ship raw crude to the US, and the other to ship diluent back to Canada at a cost of billions (more then building a new refinery)
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  10. #520
    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 Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Right

    So instead of building a refinery in Alberta which would be less enviromentally damaging then the strip mining done for some oil sand production, and would easily pass environmental regulations, they will instead build two pipelines one to ship raw crude to the US, and the other to ship diluent back to Canada at a cost of billions (more then building a new refinery)
    Our refineries in the Mid West ramped up to process this Canadian slugde and the Keystone SL will by pass them to go to the Free Trade Zones in Texas.

    A pipeline will cost 7 billion.. a refinery will cost 5 billion.

Page 52 of 83 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... 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
  •