• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Gill said:
Actually, forest fires typically burn at temperatures around 1470 degrees F. Far to low to damage an object buried 4 ft down.
Click to expand...

Definitely a typical forest fire wouldn't...

I think you're kind of losing track of the discussion. You claimed that pipelines were much safer than boats by volume. I said that may be true, but I would like to see actual data, since there are a lot of potential dangers to pipelines too. Forest fires was one of many examples I posted. As of now, you haven't countered any of them except forest fires, and your position now seems to be that only some forest fires could cause that, and you haven't given any actual source showing that pipelines are safer. You aren't really advancing the discussion. Forget about forest fires. Even if no forest fire could ever impact a pipeline, that wouldn't change where we're at in the discussion at all. There would still be plenty of potential dangers with pipelines warranting an examination of the actual data, and we still wouldn't have that actual data.

So, still my gut tells me that's probably right that pipelines are slightly safer by volume, but I'm still not sure.
 
Gill said:
That was BEFORE TransCanada agreed to change the route of the pipeline. Now only extremist environmental groups are against it, but they would be against any effort to reduce America's dependency of ME oil.
Click to expand...
So because Nebraskans aren't protesting a non-existent pipeline route you make an unfounded claim that they're happy?



Cons are funny.
Funny cons.
 
BWG said:
So because Nebraskans aren't protesting a non-existent pipeline route you make an unfounded claim that they're happy?



Cons are funny.
Funny cons.
Click to expand...

You make a claim that Nebraskans are unhappy, I post proof that the governor who was leading the initial fight against the pipeline is now happy and you ignore it. Suppose you post proof of your allegation that anyone in Nebraska OTHER THAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, is unhappy and you might have a point.

Until then, YOU are the funny one.
 
teamosil said:
Definitely a typical forest fire wouldn't...

I think you're kind of losing track of the discussion. You claimed that pipelines were much safer than boats by volume. I said that may be true, but I would like to see actual data, since there are a lot of potential dangers to pipelines too. Forest fires was one of many examples I posted. As of now, you haven't countered any of them except forest fires, and your position now seems to be that only some forest fires could cause that, and you haven't given any actual source showing that pipelines are safer. You aren't really advancing the discussion. Forget about forest fires. Even if no forest fire could ever impact a pipeline, that wouldn't change where we're at in the discussion at all. There would still be plenty of potential dangers with pipelines warranting an examination of the actual data, and we still wouldn't have that actual data.

So, still my gut tells me that's probably right that pipelines are slightly safer by volume, but I'm still not sure.
Click to expand...

What are these mysterious dangers ??
 
sangha said:
No, Nebraskans aren't protesting because, at this moment, there is no pipeline route to protest
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good strategy......... wait until something you are against is built and then protest it.

Yep, that would do a lot of good..:roll:
 
AdamT said:
Well it will be interesting to see if the Canadians are so cavalier about environmental concerns when it's their own land they're talking about. :lol:
Click to expand...

You think they will let it sit there? Another alternative is a pipeline to Churchill, though I haven't heard anyone voice plans for that alternative yet. It would be much closer and they would have to further develop port facilities and export crude rather than refined products, but they already plan to expand traffic through there in the coming decades.
 
Ahhh, the reason for rejecting the pipeline by Obama is becoming clearer:

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
Click to expand...
Buffett
 
wait this pipeline was for oil sands???????? lol.....
 
Gill said:
What are these mysterious dangers ??
Click to expand...


None that I can see...

He said that 21,000 sensors monitor the length of the pipeline by satellite 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with data refreshed every five seconds. If there is a problem, automatic shut-off valves can be activated in minutes - shutting off the flow of oil.

Nebraska Sandhills Spared: TransCanada Will Reroute Pipeline
Click to expand...

It seems as though any proposal is scuttled upon announcement using the most ridiculous of imagined fears.


j-mac
 
Gill said:
That's what the title of the thread says............
Click to expand...


oil sands are a massive waste of time...wow North America must truely be past peak oil if you are all arguing over an oil sands pipeline!
 
j-mac said:
None that I can see...



It seems as though any proposal is scuttled upon announcement using the most ridiculous of imagined fears.


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's the way the whacko environmentalists work. Delay, delay, delay.
 
Higgins86 said:
oil sands are a massive waste of time...wow North America must truely be past peak oil if you are all arguing over an oil sands pipeline!
Click to expand...

A waste of time ???? You need a new source of information.

The pipeline will bring over a million barrels a day to the United States from Canada.
 
Gill said:
A waste of time ???? You need a new source of information.

The pipeline will bring over a million barrels a day to the United States from Canada.
Click to expand...


lol and do you know much energy you are going to use in order to extract that oil?

"The water-based extraction process uses enormous water inputs, requiring between two and four barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced. The oil sands industry also uses large quantities of energy and produces massive amounts of waste water, known as “tailings.” Already, two toxic tailings dumps from Canadian oil sands mines are said to be visible from space with the naked eye." Like I said desperate times...


http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4222
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
lol and do you know much energy you are going to use in order to extract that oil? Like I said desperate times....
Click to expand...

Since I doubt the oil companies are planning on losing money, I'd say it cost less to extract than they are paid for it. Current cost to extract and refine tar sand oil is around $27 a barrel. Since oil today is selling for a tad over $99 a barrel, I think they will make a tidy profit.

Doesn't sound too desperate to me.
 
Gill said:
Since I doubt the oil companies are planning on losing money, I'd say it cost less to extract than they are paid for it. Current cost to extract and refine tar sand oil is around $27 a barrel. Since oil today is selling for a tad over $99 a barrel, I think they will make a tidy profit.

Doesn't sound too desperate to me.
Click to expand...


oh they will make a profit but nothing compared to pumping oil pure from the ground, I just think its time we started getting real and started looking at other energy soucres, what about natural gas we need to started hitting that up!
 
Higgins86 said:
oh they will make a profit but nothing compared to pumping oil pure from the ground, I just think its time we started getting real and started looking at other energy soucres, what about natural gas we need to started hitting that up!
Click to expand...

Oil from the ground is more profitable, but I would certainly take over $70 a barrel in profit on a million barrels a day.

The price of natural gas has fallen through the basement. It has dropped from over $12 to around $4. Several companies are shutting down wells until the price rises.
 
Higgins86 said:
oh they will make a profit but nothing compared to pumping oil pure from the ground, I just think its time we started getting real and started looking at other energy soucres, what about natural gas we need to started hitting that up!
Click to expand...


Oh, here we go...As though these things aren't being done at all...Good God. Listen, alternatives are YEARS, DECADES from being viable. Remember all the arguments against Alaskan drilling of our own resource? Same argument for these alternatives. Peak Oil is a man made phenomena. Until we get serious and start tapping our own reserves that right now are kept under lock and key, in favor of making America MORE dependent on foreign sources, then the price will skyrocket as Obama said he would ensure they do. Keep in mind that this artificial pricing in oil is the only thing keeping these nut job green energy boondoggles alive.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh, here we go...As though these things aren't being done at all...Good God. Listen, alternatives are YEARS, DECADES from being viable. Remember all the arguments against Alaskan drilling of our own resource? Same argument for these alternatives. Peak Oil is a man made phenomena. Until we get serious and start tapping our own reserves that right now are kept under lock and key, in favor of making America MORE dependent on foreign sources, then the price will skyrocket as Obama said he would ensure they do. Keep in mind that this artificial pricing in oil is the only thing keeping these nut job green energy boondoggles alive.

j-mac
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

the world is paying these 'artificial' prices for oil

the boondoggled nutjobs are those who believe that market price constitutes an 'artificial' price
 
Gill said:
Yeah, that's a good strategy......... wait until something you are against is built and then protest it.

Yep, that would do a lot of good..:roll:
Click to expand...

Learn to read. I didn't say "because, at this moment, there is no pipeline to protest"; I said "because, at this moment, there is no pipeline route to protest"
 
j-mac said:
So, are you saying that ANY route would be protested?


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, if I wanted to say that, I would have actually said that

BTW, are you ever going to explain what "theory" you think I'm arguing for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom