• 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

[...] If it must be diluted to flow through pipelines, why can't it be diluted to load into tankers ??? [...]
[...] It can be diluted to be put in railroad tankers, but why bother? [...]
Why bother ??? Are you serious. Maybe to ship it to refineries ?? [...]
If you're going to ship it via rail, there is no need to dilute it and put it in a tanker; simply put it into a hopper car, the way coal is transported. Or something similar. Now it may need to be diluted prior to being processed by a refinery, but you have not made that argument.

[...] What's funny is that all the environmental groups that oppose the pipeline, are pushing for shipment of the oil by rail. [...]
They are? Says who?
 
If you're going to ship it via rail, there is no need to dilute it and put it in a tanker; simply put it into a hopper car, the way coal is transported. Or something similar. Now it may need to be diluted prior to being processed by a refinery, but you have not made that argument.


They are? Says who?

Exactly and there is no need to make a slurry for extraction before it is diluted and put in a pipeline.
 
If you're going to ship it via rail, there is no need to dilute it and put it in a tanker; simply put it into a hopper car, the way coal is transported. Or something similar. Now it may need to be diluted prior to being processed by a refinery, but you have not made that argument.

I'm sure they are going to ship thousands of tons of sand from northern Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Yeah, that's a real economical move...........:lamo
 
I'm sure they are going to ship thousands of tons of sand from northern Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Yeah, that's a real economical move...........:lamo
Hey, the rail deal is some right wing conspiracy theory involving Warren Buffet; don't blame me [shrug]
 
Well, whatever. It's too late now.

The oil is going to China.

Rick Perry: Texans Are Baffled by the Keystone Decision - WSJ.com

Perry's claim of 20,000 jobs is a gross exaggeration.. TAPLINE construction only took 1100 workers.

Perry is playing this like a political football.. The oil, as refined products, was destined for foreign markets anyway..

The key here is that because of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone.. its far more profitable for the oil companies in Alberta.

I don't object to the pipeline.. I object to the political liars playing the US public... Its benefit to the Americans is minimal.
 
I don't object to the pipeline.. I object to the political liars playing the US public... Its benefit to the Americans is minimal.

Me too......... I hate political liars that post photos of Utah shale oil and claim it is Canadian tar sand.
 
Me too......... I hate political liars that post photos of Utah shale oil and claim it is Canadian tar sand.

TarSands-TH.jpg


Tar sands (also referred to as oil sands) are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

See the Photos page for additional photos of tar sand and tar sand mining.

Tar Sands Basics

You will find a whole collection of Tar sands and Shale oil photos here:

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Photos

TS-LabGroup-TH.jpg


RawShaleCrushed-TH.jpg
 
TarSands-TH.jpg


Tar sands (also referred to as oil sands) are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

See the Photos page for additional photos of tar sand and tar sand mining.

Tar Sands Basics

You will find a whole collection of Tar sands and Shale oil photos here:

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Photos

TS-LabGroup-TH.jpg


RawShaleCrushed-TH.jpg

Glad to see you finally admit you posted incorrect and misleading photos. I posted the proper photo of oil sand a long time ago in this thread.
 
Glad to see you finally admit you posted incorrect and misleading photos. I posted the proper photo of oil sand a long time ago in this thread.

None the less both are basically solids and vary in consistency from site to site and even within the same mining operation. I am sorry that you are splitting hairs on the to the extent that you are calling me names.

Why don't you look at ALL the tar sands, shale oil photos near the bottom of the link.

The little pebbles are after it has been crushed and before it it slurried and extracted per your earlier photo.
 
Last edited:
None the less both are basically solids and vary in consistency from site to site and even within the same mining operation. I am sorry that you are splitting hairs on the to the extent that you are calling me names.

Why don't you look at ALL the tar sands, shale oil photos near the bottom of the link.

You're still being dishonest. Tar sand is sand, the same as found in kid's sandboxes, that is saturated with oil. Shale oil is shale (a rock) that contains petroleum.

The photo you originally posted as tar sand, is from the site you just posted and is clearly marked as Utah oil shale.

Since this thread is about oil sand, you are still being dishonest trying to pass off oil shale as oil sands. You and Karl are desperate to support your unsupportable claims that Canadian tar sand can be loaded onto open rail cars like coal.

You both are very wrong.
 
You're still being dishonest. Tar sand is sand, the same as found in kid's sandboxes, that is saturated with oil. Shale oil is shale (a rock) that contains petroleum.

The photo you originally posted as tar sand, is from the site you just posted and is clearly marked as Utah oil shale.

Since this thread is about oil sand, you are still being dishonest trying to pass off oil shale as oil sands. You and Karl are desperate to support your unsupportable claims that Canadian tar sand can be loaded onto open rail cars like coal.

You both are very wrong.

From the photo collection

TS-LabSingle-TH.jpg
Utah Tar Sands.

TS-LabGroup-TH.jpg
Utah Tar Sands.
 
From the photo collection

TS-LabSingle-TH.jpg
Utah Tar Sands.

TS-LabGroup-TH.jpg
Utah Tar Sands.

I thought this thread was about CANADIAN tar sands................ did I misread the title ???
 
I thought this thread was about CANADIAN tar sands................ did I misread the title ???

As I said earlier.. the consistency varies from site to site and even within the same mining operation.
 
As I said earlier.. the consistency varies from site to site and even within the same mining operation.

You need to learn when to simply admit you were wrong.
 
You need to learn when to simply admit you were wrong.

Why don't you consult an oilman or find a website that is acceptable to you?
 
Why don't you consult an oilman or find a website that is acceptable to you?

I did find a web site that is acceptable.............the one you linked to that clearly showed that you lied.
 
Well, whatever. It's too late now. The oil is going to China.

Rick Perry: Texans Are Baffled by the Keystone Decision - WSJ.com
Like Bill O'Reilly, I imagine that Rick Perry is also baffled by tides
icon_biggrin_notooth.gif




Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg



Edited to add: I see from your link that O'Reilly and Perry are not the only ones confused . . . . . . ("the oil" is not going to China, and the WSJ is still promoting the 20,000 jobs lie). Clearly, propagandists never give up, despite how badly they've been 'outed'.
 
Last edited:
Perry's claim of 20,000 jobs is a gross exaggeration.. TAPLINE construction only took 1100 workers.

Perry is playing this like a political football.. The oil, as refined products, was destined for foreign markets anyway..

The key here is that because of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone.. its far more profitable for the oil companies in Alberta.

I don't object to the pipeline.. I object to the political liars playing the US public... Its benefit to the Americans is minimal.

Well whether it is 20,00 jobs or 200 jobs can be debated indefinitely but one thing is certain, there are no new jobs.

It's also safe to say that there will be more crony capitalism and more Solyndras. You make your choice and you live with it.
 
Like Bill O'Reilly, I imagine that Rick Perry is also baffled by tides
icon_biggrin_notooth.gif




Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg


Edited to add: I see from your link that O'Reilly and Perry are not the only ones confused . . . . . .

LOLOL.. very good, Karl.
 
Well whether it is 20,00 jobs or 200 jobs can be debated indefinitely but one thing is certain, there are no new jobs.

It's also safe to say that there will be more crony capitalism and more Solyndras. You make your choice and you live with it.

If a company can't move and process 700,000 barrels of oil per day with a labor force of less than a thousand people, they should get out of the business..

But, you are right.. you make the decision and live with it.
 
Like Bill O'Reilly, I imagine that Rick Perry is also baffled by tides
icon_biggrin_notooth.gif




Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg


Edited to add: I see from your link that O'Reilly and Perry are not the only ones confused . . . . . . ("the oil" is not going to China, and the WSJ is still promoting the 20,000 jobs lie). Clearly, propagandists never give up, despite how badly they've been 'outed'.

Whatever.

Ad hominem attacks do not create jobs or supply energy to the country.

I think you need another four years of Barrack Obama before you really learn your lesson, and of course it's a lesson America's grandchildren (if they have any) will learn as well.
 
Last edited:
Whatever. Ad hominem attacks do not create jobs or supply energy to the country.

I think you need another four years of Barrack Obama before you really learn your lesson, and of course it's a lesson America's grandchildren (if they have any) will learn as well.
Nor do they win debates, so why do you continue to employ them in lieu of rational argument?

Let's face facts here, folks -- the right has gotten caught in so many lies on this particular subject that they no longer want to talk about the truth, but about some imagined impact upon 'the children'. While calling those that have successfully identified their lies as people 'needing to learn a lesson'.

That's a little bit scary.
 
Nor do they win debates, so why do you continue to employ them in lieu of rational argument?
Huh? You were attacking Rick Perry and, for some obscure reason, Bill O'Reilly. Who was I making an ad hominem attack against?

Let's face facts here, folks -- the right has gotten caught in so many lies on this particular subject that they no longer want to talk about the truth, but about some imagined impact upon 'the children'. While calling those that have successfully identified their lies as people 'needing to learn a lesson'.

Where do you find any error in my analysis?
That's a little bit scary.

The 'scary' part has not yet begun.
 
Well, whatever. It's too late now.

The oil is going to China.

Rick Perry: Texans Are Baffled by the Keystone Decision - WSJ.com
More scare tactics.

You guys all act like TransCanadian was making some huge corporate sacrifice bringing oil into the US. That's crap. They obviously saw a chance to make some big money going to Texas instead of British Columbia. They're not going to give up on those $$$ easily. The "going to China" line is just that, a line, and not much different than "Do you come here often?" as to it's hopeful outcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom