• 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!

Montana oil spill renews worries over pipeline safety

What is your preferred method to transport oil? Trains derail, ships sink, trucks crash.
 
What is your preferred method to transport oil? Trains derail, ships sink, trucks crash.

My preferred method is for the US not to take the risk of contaminating our lands to transport CANADIAN oil.
 
Montana oil spill renews worries over pipeline safety

We should totally build an even BIGGER pipeline that runs right through America's breadbasket to make it easier for Canadian companies to send the worse oil through! /sarcasm

Because upgrading our aging infrastructure is bad idea... This leak was from an old pipeline, one without the leak preventing tech that new ones have. This event doesn't reflect the risk that Keystone has, since it's an old pipeline that needs replacement/upgrading and Keystone would be a state of the art pipeline. It's like telling your brother that he shouldn't buy a new car since all your 1974 Chrysler K-car does is break down and his new Ford F-150 will be just as bad.
 
My preferred method is for the US not to take the risk of contaminating our lands to transport CANADIAN oil.

So is it just Canadian oil you want to boycott or all oil from all countries arriving on our shores by ships that can and do run aground and then transported by road or rail where spills also occur? My guess is you are so anti oil you would stop it all if you could.
 
My preferred method is for the US not to take the risk of contaminating our lands to transport CANADIAN oil.

Most of which is coming from an naturally occurring environmental nightmare situation--tar sands. I find it ironic that environmentalist want to make it harder for Canada to mitigate an environmental nightmare because it involves oil.
 
Because upgrading our aging infrastructure is bad idea... This leak was from an old pipeline, one without the leak preventing tech that new ones have. This event doesn't reflect the risk that Keystone has, since it's an old pipeline that needs replacement/upgrading and Keystone would be a state of the art pipeline. It's like telling your brother that he shouldn't buy a new car since all your 1974 Chrysler K-car does is break down and his new Ford F-150 will be just as bad.

It's cute how you've conflated upgrading infrastructure and the US taking all of the risk transporting oil for a Canadian company through our land.
 
So is it just Canadian oil you want to boycott or all oil from all countries arriving on our shores by ships that can and do run aground and then transported by road or rail where spills also occur? My guess is you are so anti oil you would stop it all if you could.

Let me repost my point... because clearly you missed it.

My preferred method is for the US not to take the risk of contaminating our lands to transport CANADIAN oil.
 
It's cute how you've conflated upgrading infrastructure and the US taking all of the risk transporting oil for a Canadian company through our land.

The article was doing the conflating by comparing a very old pipeline to Keystone. It was trying to make it sound like Keystone was just as risky as this old pipeline and that's just not the case. The solution to the problem of this pipeline leaking isn't to stop Keystone, it's to upgrade the pipeline. Fix the problem, instead of using it for political purposes.
 
Let me repost my point... because clearly you missed it.

I read you loud and clear now. You are fine with the possibility of contaminating our land and sea with any other oil than Canadian oil. Makes no sense to me but if you hate Canada that bad so be it.
 
My preferred method is for the US not to take the risk of contaminating our lands to transport CANADIAN oil.

You'd much rather pay to whip rape victims
 
Montana oil spill renews worries over pipeline safety

We should totally build an even BIGGER pipeline that runs right through America's breadbasket to make it easier for Canadian companies to send the worse oil through! /sarcasm

The key part of this is right there in the opening paragraph of your story... "oversight of the nation's aging pipeline network." Aging.

Oversight if infrastructure in all of its forms (transportation of energy, transportation of other goods, movement of the populace, information exchange, etc.) all requires upkeep, improvement, and changes to reflect needs that are usually not static.

I'll agree with you that I do not like the idea of TransCanada using the American government to get a pipeline extension that requires obtaining land that neither party owns, perhaps by domain fight for at least part of. And on top of that to move oil that has little impact for American energy needs.

There are problems with Keystone XL extensions desires by Republicans, but using this article as a means to suggest we not keep up with existing energy infrastructure needs and future needs goes directly against the article itself.
 
I read you loud and clear now. You are fine with the possibility of contaminating our land and sea with any other oil than Canadian oil. Makes no sense to me but if you hate Canada that bad so be it.

What is your preferred method to transport oil? Trains derail, ships sink, trucks crash.

What the vast majority of folks fail to realise, that is they don't know how ignorant they are, a Keystone pipeline already exists which brings the tarsands oil as far south as Cushing OK. The new pipeline's primary purpose is to shorten the length of pipeline, unfortunately the shortest route leads over the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies water to agriculture in the middle of the country.

Here's the Wiki map showing existing and proposed Keystone
Keystone-pipeline-route.jpg

Then there's the ever so small matter of a foreign corporation seizing American property. Which does cause me to wonder about those "conservatives" and "libertarians" who constantly rant about the federal government overstepping the boundaries but for some reason they remain silent on this case.

TransCanada Tries To Seize U.S. Land For Keystone Pipeline

New suits filed this past week as Keystone XL Pipeline Files for Eminent Domain in Nebraska
 
Last edited:
What seems to be lost in the discussions about Keystone, is that oil
whatever the source is the raw material.
Thorough refining, we manufacturer finished fuel products, and many other things.
We need some manufacturing basis to drive the economy, Services alone will not do it.
 
What is your preferred method to transport oil? Trains derail, ships sink, trucks crash.

He'd rather we run trains down those rickety 100 year old tracks.
 
Montana oil spill renews worries over pipeline safety

We should totally build an even BIGGER pipeline that runs right through America's breadbasket to make it easier for Canadian companies to send the worse oil through! /sarcasm

Today a grandmother fell down her stairs and died somewhere in America. We should immediately ban all stair cases. Somewhere else, a child choked to death on solid food, we should ban solid foods. Als in breaking news snow is cold and children get frostbit, children should be banned from touching snow and parents should be jailed if they allow their kids near that danger.
 
Replacing "those rickety 100 year old tracks" would create more jobs for a longer period than constructing the Keystone Pipeline

Not really. They'd just be another boondoggle waste of public money.
 
Replacing "those rickety 100 year old tracks" would create more jobs for a longer period than constructing the Keystone Pipeline

Maybe you should put a proposal together and see. The tracks in the US suck all over.
 
Maybe you should put a proposal together and see. The tracks in the US suck all over.

Well we clearly need to replace rail infrastructure. We have bridges from the 1800s that are still carrying trains. The other problem, is that a large amount of cross-country real traffic has to converge through choke points that are highly congested. And freight rail is hauling higher and higher volumes of traffic every year,
 
Not really. They'd just be another boondoggle waste of public money.

Kind of like electricity, dams, and water supplies, all public boondoggles we should all do without
 
He'd rather we run trains down those rickety 100 year old tracks.

No, I'd rather they take their Canadian oil and transport it across Canadian land, instead of putting American land at risk for Canadian profits.
 
So is it just Canadian oil you want to boycott or all oil from all countries arriving on our shores by ships that can and do run aground and then transported by road or rail where spills also occur? My guess is you are so anti oil you would stop it all if you could.

Until of course that ran energy prices up, and then she would be looking for the government to subsidize it.
 
Well we clearly need to replace rail infrastructure. We have bridges from the 1800s that are still carrying trains. The other problem, is that a large amount of cross-country real traffic has to converge through choke points that are highly congested. And freight rail is hauling higher and higher volumes of traffic every year,

Did you know that many engineers are going back to wooden bridges because they last so long?

Wooden bridge resurgence? Emmet County builds one : News : UpNorthLive.com

Timber Bridge Construction ? Quality Timber Bridges Constructed by Bridge Builders
 
Back
Top Bottom