• 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!

Thousands of Gallons of Crude Oil Spills in Ohio Nature Preserve

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,520
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I believe we need to advance fusion power, it could not only help our environment, but could also enable scale economies so vital to more developed political-economies.

http://www.wunderground.com/news/crude-oil-spills-ohio-nature-preserve-20140320

Bob Mason, a stewardship manager for the company that owns Oak Glen Nature Preserve, told the Enquirer that the spill "could definitely have been worse later in the spring when all of our wildlife is coming out of hibernation" and that the frozen turf helped to contain the spill.
 
At least it was American crude. Some want us to spill Canadian tar sands crap all over too.

Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.
 
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.

Let the Canadians spill their oil for China on their own soil. Why won't they allow a pipeline to their West Coast? Because they are not greedy fools like some here.
 
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.

Dude, it is a fossil fuel. We could be advancing fusion and not have this particular problem any more. What is petroleum going do do about desalinating ocean water, for potable purposes or providing power to advances in laser boring methods?
 
Let the Canadians spill their oil for China on their own soil. Why won't they allow a pipeline to their West Coast? Because they are not greedy fools like some here.

:doh what part of "we are still going to consume the oil" is too complex, here? If you don't let a pipeline bring it down, it's going to be put on trucks or boats, either of which spill more.
 
:doh what part of "we are still going to consume the oil" is too complex, here? If you don't let a pipeline bring it down, it's going to be put on trucks or boats, either of which spill more.

Hence why I have a Cause to advance, in this very thread.
 
Dude, it is a fossil fuel. We could be advancing fusion and not have this particular problem any more. What is petroleum going do do about desalinating ocean water, for potable purposes or providing power to advances in laser boring methods?

All great points. Myself, I think having unicorns run on wheels made out of solid rainbows is looking pretty promising, too. We could even breed super-small unicorns to power your home kitchen appliances.

Until that works out, however, we are stuck with fossil fuel. Wishful thinking is not an adequate replacement for thorough planning and appreciation of the limitations of reality.
 
:doh what part of "we are still going to consume the oil" is too complex, here? If you don't let a pipeline bring it down, it's going to be put on trucks or boats, either of which spill more.

The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.
 
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.

It's not about the environment. It's about government control of the prvate sector.

It's never been about the environment...

Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report | Fox News
 
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.

No, it is for refinement. Oil is fungible.
 
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.

Building the pipeline will create jobs
 
Hence why I have a Cause to advance, in this very thread.

Apropos, perhaps:

White House adviser John Podesta took aim Wednesday at environmentalists who have criticized the Obama administration’s support for natural gas.

“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn that switch off tomorrow, that is a completely impractical way of moving toward a clean-energy future,” Podesta told reporters during a roundtable discussion at the White House.

“With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s sort of an impractical suggestion,” he added...
 
No, it is for refinement. Oil is fungible.

And why exactly should we take all the risks of the pipeline and pollution from refining that goop? All the gasoline made from it will be exported. As I said we have no use for it.
 
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.


Yes, because "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing" is exactly what you want. Right?
 
Yes, because "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing" is exactly what you want. Right?

Tar sands oil is only viable when oil is > $100 a barrel. It is the most expensive oil on the planet.
 
Tar sands oil is only viable when oil is > $100 a barrel. It is the most expensive oil on the planet.

Well then, maybe we should be allowed to exploit our own more accessible resources....Nah....You don't want that either....
 
Back
Top Bottom