Page 70 of 83 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #691
    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 Rosie1 View Post
    Wow, 69 pages... Has anyone mentioned the Koch Brothers envolvement with the Keystone Pipeline? The Koch Congress Pushing Keystone Pipeline
    I dunno, did anyone mention this?

    Warren Buffett cleans up after Keystone XL

    The Sage of Omaha is one lucky guy.

    by John Hayward 01/24/2012

    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
    Then I read this....

    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 spoksman 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 dvide 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 cancelation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spoksman 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 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.
    "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

  2. #692
    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
    I dunno, did anyone mention this?



    Then I read this....



    What environmental groups? Even the spoksman 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 dvide 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 cancelation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spoksman 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 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.
    They aren't going to use railroads to ship bitumen from Canada as if they have 1,000 tanker cars laid off and looking for a job. Shipping by rail is expensive and that's why the oil companies build pipelines. The Keystone pipeline is built and has a maximum capacity of 590,000 barrels per day. The Keystone XL project has two projects. One is to connect the Keystone pipeline in Oklahoma to the Gulf refineries in Texas and Louisiana. This is going to happen, because there's a oil glut in Oklahoma. The other project is to connect the Gulf refineries to the bitumen. Instead of following the original path of the Keystone pipeline, through North Dakota, they want an direct path.

  3. #693
    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 Gary View Post
    They aren't going to use railroads to ship bitumen from Canada as if they have 1,000 tanker cars laid off and looking for a job. Shipping by rail is expensive and that's why the oil companies build pipelines. The Keystone pipeline is built and has a maximum capacity of 590,000 barrels per day. The Keystone XL project has two projects. One is to connect the Keystone pipeline in Oklahoma to the Gulf refineries in Texas and Louisiana. This is going to happen, because there's a oil glut in Oklahoma. The other project is to connect the Gulf refineries to the bitumen. Instead of following the original path of the Keystone pipeline, through North Dakota, they want an direct path.
    The direct path conveniently protects Warren Buffets business, thanks Gary!
    "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

  4. #694
    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 Prof. Peabody View Post
    The direct path conveniently protects Warren Buffets business, thanks Gary!
    It won't be hauled in railroad cars, but if it were its not dangerous.. Its thicker than peanut butter can be cut into chunks like soft coal.

    In order to transport it by pipeline it has to be diluted with imported crude of less viscosity and piped under pressure.

  5. #695
    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
    The direct path conveniently protects Warren Buffets business, thanks Gary!
    Why don't you stop making up crap about trains going to the tar sands of Alberta? Part of the Keystone XL is to connect Cushing, OK with the Gulf refineries. There isn't an issue with that part of the project.

    No one has a thousand unused tank cars to transport bitumen.

  6. #696
    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 sharon View Post
    It won't be hauled in railroad cars, but if it were its not dangerous.. Its thicker than peanut butter can be cut into chunks like soft coal.

    In order to transport it by pipeline it has to be diluted with imported crude of less viscosity and piped under pressure.
    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.

    Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL - HUMAN EVENTS
    Please show usa the link that proves this:

    It won't be hauled in railroad cars, but if it were its not dangerous.. Its thicker than peanut butter can be cut into chunks like soft coal.
    I'll wait.......
    "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. #697
    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 Gary View Post
    Why don't you stop making up crap about trains going to the tar sands of Alberta? Part of the Keystone XL is to connect Cushing, OK with the Gulf refineries. There isn't an issue with that part of the project.

    No one has a thousand unused tank cars to transport bitumen.

    Why don't you back up your assertions with some links to bonified news sources.
    "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

  8. #698
    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 Prof. Peabody View Post
    Please show usa the link that proves this:



    I'll wait.......
    Here's a photo of bitumen.. Its not liquid enough to flow.


  9. #699
    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

    Dilbit is diluted bitumen. Per the Alberta Oil Sands Bitumen Valuation Methodology, "Dilbit Blends" means "Blends made from heavy crudes and/or bitumens and a diluent usually condensate, for the purpose of meeting pipeline viscosity and density specifications, where the density of the diluent included in the blend is less than 800 kg/m3."[1] If the diluent density is greater than or equal to 800 kg/m3, the diluent is typically synthetic crude and accordingly the blend is called synbit.

    However, bitumen in its undiluted state is too viscous and dense to be transported by pipeline. To create a fluid capable of transportation by pipeline, bitumen must be mixed with a fluid that has much lower viscosity and will keep bitumen from precipitating out of the mixture. By 1985 and demonstrating the effectiveness of dilbit, Alberta Energy Company was operating dual pipelines to transport diluent from Edmonton to Cold Lake and dilbit from Cold Lake to Edmonton.[2]

    [edit] How is bitumen diluted?

    The most common diluent used to dilute bitumen is natural gas condensate (NGC), especially the naptha component. Due to insufficient quantity of natural gas condensate, bitumen shippers also use refined naptha and synthetic crude oil (SCO) as diluent. Although SCO requires a higher volume percentage to achieve the same viscosity, at least one study found that SCO provides better blend stability than NGC.[3] Shippers dilute bitumen before shipment in order to meet viscosity and density requirements found in common carrier pipeline tariff rules. By selecting different diluent types and blend ratios, bitumen shippers attempt to lower component costs, increase blend value, and maintain pipeline transportability. The blend ratio may consist of 25 to 55% diluent by volume, depending on characteristics of the bitumen and diluent, pipeline specifications, operating conditions, and refinery requirements.[2]

    [edit] What happens to the dilbit?

    Diluent can be removed from dilbit by distillation and reused as diluent. Alternatively, the entire dilbit can be refined. As dilbit contains hydrocarbons at extreme ends of the viscosity range, dilbit can be more difficult to process than typical crude oil. As such, dilbit is normally only a small portion of a refinery's total feedstock

    Dilbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #700
    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

    So what? What is the problem?
    "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

Page 70 of 83 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... 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
  •