• 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

sharon said:
So.. in future.. Do your own research or continue to invent your beliefs out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Is it you just don't like oil? Have you given up your car and walk, ride a horse or use public transportation to go everywhere?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Is it you just don't like oil? Have you given up your car and walk, ride a horse or use public transportation to go everywhere?
Click to expand...

This is an export pipeline.. It will be refined in a Saudi refinery on a Free Trade zone and sold overseas.

It won't increase US supply or reduce prices at the pumps.
 
sharon said:
This is an export pipeline.. It will be refined in a Saudi refinery on a Free Trade zone and sold overseas.

It won't increase US supply or reduce prices at the pumps.
Click to expand...

Your not making any sense at all. If the oil sands were simply to be exported, Canada has plenty of ports to do that without send it to the gulf of Mexico first. So your response sounds like bull crap. So, please post a link to back up your assertion.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Your not making any sense at all. If the oil sands were simply to be exported, Canada has plenty of ports to do that without send it to the gulf of Mexico first. So your response sounds like bull crap. So, please post a link to back up your assertion.
Click to expand...

Canadians don't want this gunk piped across their land to the ports and the Chinese owned Canadian oil companies don't want to pay the higher Canadian taxes and transit fees when they can take advantage of NAFTA by going south.

Yes.. I do like oil.... I don't like stupid or having decisions shoved down American throats with lies about HUGE new job numbers related to this tax dodge.
 
sharon said:
Canadians don't want this gunk piped across their land to the ports and the Chinese owned Canadian oil companies don't want to pay the higher Canadian taxes and transit fees when they can take advantage of NAFTA by going south.

Yes.. I do like oil.... I don't like stupid or having decisions shoved down American throats with lies about HUGE new job numbers related to this tax dodge.
Click to expand...

Shovel that crapola elsewhere please. I asked a question you seem unwilling to answer.

"So, please post a link to back up your assertion."

This is an export pipeline.. It will be refined in a Saudi refinery on a Free Trade zone and sold overseas.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to back up you "story" or don't you? A simple yes or no will do.



p.s. I negotiated labor contracts for 12 years, I am a skilled debater in case you haven't noticed. I also accept the white flag of surrender with grace if you choose to do so.
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
Shovel that crapola elsewhere please. I asked a question you seem unwilling to answer.

"So, please post a link to back up your assertion."



Do you have a link to back up you "story" or don't you? A simple yes or no will do.
Click to expand...

Many links have been posted over the past couple of weeks .. most of them repeatedly..

If you were actually interested, you wouldn't be so far behind the curve.......

and the information is readily available on google..

I am not researching any thing else for your lazy self... to be told so what.
 
sharon said:
Many links have been posted over the past couple of weeks .. most of them repeatedly..

If you were actually interested, you wouldn't be so far behind the curve.......

and the information is readily available on google..

I am not researching any thing else for your lazy self... to be told so what.
Click to expand...

I will accept your surrender then.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Why don't you back up your assertions with some links to bonified news sources.
Click to expand...

You're making the claim about using Buffett's railroads, so you prove it!

Where is your link that there are even train tracks going to that tar sand area? To transport something you have to have a continuous means of transportation. No one has built a thousand railroad tank cars, waiting for the day when someone would want to use them.

Buffetts interest in rails was based on ethanol.
 
Gary said:
You're making the claim about using Buffett's railroads, so you prove it!

Where is your link that there are even train tracks going to that tar sand area? To transport something you have to have a continuous means of transportation. No one has built a thousand railroad tank cars, waiting for the day when someone would want to use them.

Buffetts interest in rails was based on ethanol.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

I save all my research. Would you like anything else?
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
I save all my research. Would you like anything else?
Click to expand...

What research?

There is a Keystone pipeline from those North Dakota oil fields down to Cushing, Oklahoma. The direct path of the Keystone XL pipeline doesn't go near North Dakota. I've posted the map of the existing Keystone pipeline plenty of times.

I've also posted export data for gasoline showing we are exporting an amount of gasoline equal to the capacity of the existing Keystone pipeline and that these new exports started as the existing Keystone pipeline started to be used.

There is no evidence the Keystone XL pipeline will be used to bring down the price of petroleum products in America and not just be exported to take over Venezuela and Libyan markets in the Caribbean.

The question becomes, why didn't they just follow the existing Keystone pipeline? It's a longer route, yes, but there's a lot of crude in North Dakota and across the Canadian border in that region. They already have right of way.
 
Gary said:
What research?
Click to expand...

I posted it.

Gary said:
There is a Keystone pipeline from those North Dakota oil fields down to Cushing, Oklahoma. The direct path of the Keystone XL pipeline doesn't go near North Dakota. I've posted the map of the existing Keystone pipeline plenty of times.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any map.

Gary said:
I've also posted export data for gasoline showing we are exporting an amount of gasoline equal to the capacity of the existing Keystone pipeline and that these new exports started as the existing Keystone pipeline started to be used.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Where is the link to a reliable news source?

Gary said:
There is no evidence the Keystone XL pipeline will be used to bring down the price of petroleum products in America and not just be exported to take over Venezuela and Libyan markets in the Caribbean.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Where is the link to a reliable news source?

Gary said:
The question becomes, why didn't they just follow the existing Keystone pipeline? It's a longer route, yes, but there's a lot of crude in North Dakota and across the Canadian border in that region. They already have right of way.
Click to expand...

Because they want to use a much safer method of transport than by by Warren Buffets Berkshire Hathaway investment in BNSF Railroad.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I posted it.



I haven't seen any map.



There you go again. Where is the link to a reliable news source?



There you go again. Where is the link to a reliable news source?



Because they want to use a much safer method of transport than by by Warren Buffets Berkshire Hathaway investment in BNSF Railroad.
Click to expand...

Check wiki and find out when the Keystone Pipeline started operation! The purple on the map is the Keystone pipeline.

Keystone-XL-Pipeline~~element38.jpg
 
Gary said:
Check wiki and find out when the Keystone Pipeline started operation! The purple on the map is the Keystone pipeline.
Keystone-XL-Pipeline~~element38.jpg
Click to expand...
Your chart while cute is from a no name blog and therefore not credible, next time try a real news source.
 
sharon said:
Here's a photo of bitumen.. Its not liquid enough to flow.

tar_sands3.jpg
Click to expand...

Ohhh, so you contend that tar sand oil, the photo you posted is BEFORE it is processed, is too viscous to transport by rail, yet is fine for shipment by rail.

If it must be diluted to flow through pipelines, why can't it be diluted to load into tankers ???

What's funny is that all the environmental groups that oppose the pipeline, are pushing for shipment of the oil by rail. Shipment by rail is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

Here's a more accurate photo of tar sands from Canada before processing. It is NOT a rock. It is sand that contains oil. Your photo is of oil shale, NOT oil sand.

TarSands-600.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Ohhh, so you contend that tar sand oil, the photo you posted is BEFORE it is processed, is too viscous to transport by rail, yet is fine for shipment by rail.

If it must be diluted to flow through pipelines, why can't it be diluted to load into tankers ???

What's funny is that all the environmental groups that oppose the pipeline, are pushing for shipment of the oil by rail. Shipment by rail is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

Here's a more accurate photo of tar sands from Canada before processing. It is NOT a rock. It is sand that contains oil. Your photo is of oil shale, NOT oil sand.

TarSands-600.jpg
Click to expand...

Don't jump to conclusions..

It can be diluted to be put in railroad tankers, but why bother?

I never said the word "rock".. I said it was the consistency of thick peanut butter.
 
sharon said:
Don't jump to conclusions..

It can be diluted to be put in railroad tankers, but why bother?

I never said the word "rock".. I said it was the consistency of thick peanut butter.
Click to expand...

Why bother ??? Are you serious. Maybe to ship it to refineries ??

Didn't say you said it was a rock, but you dishonestly posted a picture of a different material that IS a rock.
 
Gill said:
Why bother ??? Are you serious. Maybe to ship it to refineries ??

Didn't say you said it was a rock, but you dishonestly posted a picture of a different material that IS a rock.
Click to expand...

That isn't a rock .. its a lump of Bitumen..

Do you think that if those lumps were shipped in traincars they would spill and flow.

I am really sick of being "worked" on this issue... Lies about huge employment numbers, and MORE oil available domesticaly.. lower prices at the pump, Buffet's railcars.

This isn't an issue that should be decided by politics..........
 
sharon said:
That isn't a rock .. its a lump of Bitumen..

Do you think that if those lumps were shipped in traincars they would spill and flow.

I am really sick of being "worked" on this issue... Lies about huge employment numbers, and MORE oil available domesticaly.. lower prices at the pump, Buffet's railcars.

This isn't an issue that should be decided by politics..........
Click to expand...

For the last time ........... that was not a photo of oil sand. It is a completely different material from Utah called oil shale, which is a rock.

If you want to discuss oil shale, start a new thread.

This is what oil sand looks like after being processed at the mining site prior to shipment. Does this look like a rock ??? And yes, it will spill and flow from a rail car.

extraction_separation-600.jpg
 
Gill said:
For the last time ........... that was not a photo of oil sand. It is a completely different material from Utah called oil shale, which is a rock.

If you want to discuss oil shale, start a new thread.

This is what oil sand looks like after being processed at the mining site prior to shipment. Does this look like a rock ??? And yes, it will spill and flow from a rail car.

extraction_separation-600.jpg
Click to expand...

LOLOL.. Yes.. AFTER condensates have been added to dilute it.
 
sharon said:
LOLOL.. Yes.. AFTER condensates have been added to dilute it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This is how it looks in the on-site processing plant before it is shipped by either rail or pipe.

Now you can admit that you were dishonestly posting photos of shale rocks and claiming it was tar sand.
 
Gill said:
Wrong. This is how it looks in the on-site processing plant before it is shipped by either rail or pipe.

Now you can admit that you were dishonestly posting photos of shale rocks and claiming it was tar sand.
Click to expand...

Check the properties.. its a tar sands photo. It can be shipped as a solid or diluted and piped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom