• 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 XL: No, it's not from an Oil Well, it's the dregs

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's good to have North American sourced oil rather than Middle East oil, of course..
But all things are NOT equal aside from locale.
Most think it's just an oil pipeline: ho hum.
Fossil fuel vs Renewable is the issue. NO.
People think it's a 'straw in the ground' like an well. NO.
The 'oil', 'Asphalt' is more accurate, coming from the Canadian Tar Sands is Filthy business from Mining, transporting, refining, and dumping both Solid and airborne waste products from refining this nasty stuff.

Both articles cut to one short Paragraph, but I urge to read them both.

Keystone XL Pipeline carries tar sand, Earth's dirtiest fossil fuel - Business Insider
...First, there's mining. This covers all the oil sitting in sand near the surface Alberta's oil companies Strip away the local forest then dig the sand out of the ground. But the clumpy, sandy mixture would Constipate an 875-mile pipeline, so the companies mix it with water diverted from the Athabasca river. Each barrel of bitumen (that's the technical term for the tar sand) gets soaked in 2.4 barrels of water. Once it's used in mining, much of that water is too Poisonous to return to the river, so..."​


https://www.adn.com/commentary/arti...just-tar-sands-oil-it-would-carry/2015/02/05/

"...Koch Industries expects $100 Billion in profits if Keystone XL is built. The polluted air in Houston and the Texas Gulf coast is Not going to profit at all. And, once Refined, there remain huge tailing piles of residue much like coal clinkers whose dust blows into the air further polluting surrounding residential areas. Or will they Barge it out into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, "out of sight, out of mind?"".."​


It's the environment and populace down the center of the country, and eventually Gulf of Mexico (and Arctic Ocean), that are going truly pay the COST of Mining this crap. The low quality stuff they're sending us has no place else to go from land-locked Alberta.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
It's good to have North American sourced oil rather than Middle East oil, of course..
But all things are NOT equal aside from locale.
Most think it's just an oil pipeline: ho hum.
Fossil fuel vs Renewable is the issue. NO.
People think it's a straw in the ground like a well. NO.
The 'oil', 'Asphalt' is more accurate, coming from the Canadian Tar Sands is Filthy business from Mining, transporting, refining, and dumping both Solid and airborne waste products from refining this nasty stuff.

Both articles cut to one short Paragraph, but I urge to read them both.

Keystone XL Pipeline carries tar sand, Earth's dirtiest fossil fuel - Business Insider
...First, there's mining. This covers all the oil sitting in sand near the surface Alberta's oil companies Strip away the local forest then dig the sand out of the ground. But the clumpy, sandy mixture would Constipate an 875-mile pipeline, so the companies mix it with water diverted from the Athabasca river. Each barrel of bitumen (that's the technical term for the tar sand) gets soaked in 2.4 barrels of water. Once it's used in mining, much of that water is too Poisonous to return to the river, so..."​


https://www.adn.com/commentary/arti...just-tar-sands-oil-it-would-carry/2015/02/05/

"...Koch Industries expects $100 billion in profits if Keystone XL is built. The polluted air in Houston and the Texas Gulf coast is Not going to profit at all. And, once Refined, there remain huge tailing piles of residue much like coal clinkers whose dust blows into the air further polluting surrounding residential areas. Or will they Barge it out into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, "out of sight, out of mind?"".."​


It's the environment and populace down the center of the country, and eventually Gulf of Mexico (and Arctic Ocean), that are going truly pay the COST of Mining this crap.
The stuff they're sending us has no place else to go from land-locked Alberta.
Click to expand...

If it weren't useful and wanted then nobody would want to build the pipeline in the first place. That is the beauty of business competition. So I reject your source. I know how businesses react to things.
 
fmw said:
If it weren't useful and wanted then nobody would want to build the pipeline in the first place. That is the beauty of business competition. So I reject your source. I know how businesses react to things.
Click to expand...
1. There are two sources Not one.
(and I can post dozens more)
2. Your reasoning is funny. What's "useful" (and/or Profitable) for the FEW does not mean it's a good idea for everyone else.
It would be "useful" to some to take all the topsoil (or groundwater) from your county/state and ship it to China. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for most.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
If it weren't useful and wanted then nobody would want to build the pipeline in the first place. That is the beauty of business competition. So I reject your source. I know how businesses react to things.
Click to expand...

"useful and desired" isn't the litmus test we should be using on a pipeline.

Watch faces painted with radioactive glow-in-the-dark paint were useful and desired until the women painting the watches started growing grapefruit-sized tumors on their faces.

"... The brushes [used to paint the dials] would lose shape after a few strokes, so the U.S. Radium supervisors encouraged their workers to point the brushes with their lips, or use their tongues to keep them sharp. For fun, the Radium Girls painted their nails, teeth and faces with the deadly paint produced at the factory.[5] Many of the workers became sick. It is unknown how many died from exposure to radiation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
 
I am not sure that you understand that Alberta Tar sands oil is already being refined in the Houston area.
The only difference is that the pipeline will get the oil to the refinery cheaper, and at less risk.
 
mbig said:
1. There are two sources Not one.
(and I can post dozens more)
2. Your reasoning is funny. What's "useful" (and/or Profitable) for the FEW does not mean it's a good idea for everyone else.
It would be "useful" to some to take all the topsoil (or groundwater) from your county/state and ship it to China. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for most.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is solid as a rock. Someone wants to buy it. If that were not the case, nobody would want to build the pipeline. Since the pipeline does no harm and reduces the cost of transportation as well as the emissions involved, there is no reasonable case for opposing it. There are only political and emotional reasons. I don't care about those reasons like you do. Hence we disagree.
 
fmw said:
My reasoning is solid as a rock. Someone wants to buy it. If that were not the case, nobody would want to build the pipeline. Since the pipeline does no harm and reduces the cost of transportation as well as the emissions involved, there is no reasonable case for opposing it. There are only political and emotional reasons. I don't care about those reasons like you do. Hence we disagree.
Click to expand...
That, AGAIN, is a Ridiculous 'answer.' "someone wants to buy it" is not a justification.
You did NOT address my post:

mbig:
2. Your reasoning is funny. What's "useful" (and/or Profitable) for the FEW does not mean it's a good idea for everyone else.
It would be "useful" to some to take all the topsoil (or groundwater) from your county/state and ship it to China. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for most.​

And you dropped the inexplicable/incorrect [single] 'Source' objection.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
It's good to have North American sourced oil rather than Middle East oil, of course..
But all things are NOT equal aside from locale.
Most think it's just an oil pipeline: ho hum.
Fossil fuel vs Renewable is the issue. NO.
People think it's a 'straw in the ground' like an well. NO.
The 'oil', 'Asphalt' is more accurate, coming from the Canadian Tar Sands is Filthy business from Mining, transporting, refining, and dumping both Solid and airborne waste products from refining this nasty stuff.

Both articles cut to one short Paragraph, but I urge to read them both.

Keystone XL Pipeline carries tar sand, Earth's dirtiest fossil fuel - Business Insider
...First, there's mining. This covers all the oil sitting in sand near the surface Alberta's oil companies Strip away the local forest then dig the sand out of the ground. But the clumpy, sandy mixture would Constipate an 875-mile pipeline, so the companies mix it with water diverted from the Athabasca river. Each barrel of bitumen (that's the technical term for the tar sand) gets soaked in 2.4 barrels of water. Once it's used in mining, much of that water is too Poisonous to return to the river, so..."​


https://www.adn.com/commentary/arti...just-tar-sands-oil-it-would-carry/2015/02/05/

"...Koch Industries expects $100 Billion in profits if Keystone XL is built. The polluted air in Houston and the Texas Gulf coast is Not going to profit at all. And, once Refined, there remain huge tailing piles of residue much like coal clinkers whose dust blows into the air further polluting surrounding residential areas. Or will they Barge it out into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, "out of sight, out of mind?"".."​


It's the environment and populace down the center of the country, and eventually Gulf of Mexico (and Arctic Ocean), that are going truly pay the COST of Mining this crap. The low quality stuff they're sending us has no place else to go from land-locked Alberta.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnbc.com/2013/11/04/canadian-oil-rides-south-even-without-keystone-pipeline.html
 
mbig said:
That, AGAIN, is a Ridiculous 'answer.' "someone wants to buy it" is not a justification.
You did NOT address my post:

mbig:
2. Your reasoning is funny. What's "useful" (and/or Profitable) for the FEW does not mean it's a good idea for everyone else.
It would be "useful" to some to take all the topsoil (or groundwater) from your county/state and ship it to China. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for most.​

And you dropped the inexplicable/incorrect [single] 'Source' objection.
Click to expand...

"Everyone" doesn't factor into the equation, nor should it.
 
mbig said:
It's good to have North American sourced oil rather than Middle East oil, of course..
But all things are NOT equal aside from locale.
Most think it's just an oil pipeline: ho hum.
Fossil fuel vs Renewable is the issue. NO.
People think it's a 'straw in the ground' like an well. NO.
The 'oil', 'Asphalt' is more accurate, coming from the Canadian Tar Sands is Filthy business from Mining, transporting, refining, and dumping both Solid and airborne waste products from refining this nasty stuff.

Both articles cut to one short Paragraph, but I urge to read them both.

Keystone XL Pipeline carries tar sand, Earth's dirtiest fossil fuel - Business Insider
...First, there's mining. This covers all the oil sitting in sand near the surface Alberta's oil companies Strip away the local forest then dig the sand out of the ground. But the clumpy, sandy mixture would Constipate an 875-mile pipeline, so the companies mix it with water diverted from the Athabasca river. Each barrel of bitumen (that's the technical term for the tar sand) gets soaked in 2.4 barrels of water. Once it's used in mining, much of that water is too Poisonous to return to the river, so..."​


https://www.adn.com/commentary/arti...just-tar-sands-oil-it-would-carry/2015/02/05/

"...Koch Industries expects $100 Billion in profits if Keystone XL is built. The polluted air in Houston and the Texas Gulf coast is Not going to profit at all. And, once Refined, there remain huge tailing piles of residue much like coal clinkers whose dust blows into the air further polluting surrounding residential areas. Or will they Barge it out into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, "out of sight, out of mind?"".."​


It's the environment and populace down the center of the country, and eventually Gulf of Mexico (and Arctic Ocean), that are going truly pay the COST of Mining this crap. The low quality stuff they're sending us has no place else to go from land-locked Alberta.
Click to expand...

longview said:
I am not sure that you understand that Alberta Tar sands oil is already being refined in the Houston area.
The only difference is that the pipeline will get the oil to the refinery cheaper, and at less risk.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The pipeline is an environmental and safety upgrade.
 
apdst said:
"Everyone" doesn't factor into the equation, nor should it.
Click to expand...
It's far better than "someone wants to buy it".
LOL
See my last two posts.
And you really fanned on everything in all my entries.

Jack Hays said:
Indeed. The pipeline is an environmental and safety upgrade.
Click to expand...
Upgrade from what?
More NG fracking (which we have incrementally plenty of) would be cleaner on Both sides than long distance Strip-Mined Tar sands.


EDIT:
The usual one-line Non-answer below.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
It's far better than "someone wants to buy it".
LOL
See my last two posts.
And you really fanned on everything in the OP.


Upgrade from what?
More NG fracking (which we have incrementally plenty of) would be cleaner on Both sides than long distance Strip-Mined Tar.
Click to expand...

It's already being moved by rail & road. Pipeline is considerably cleaner and safer than either.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's already being moved by rail & road. Pipeline is considerably cleaner and safer than either.
Click to expand...

It's also more efficient and reliable. Fewer moving parts, and also, it's inherently more efficient to move the product itself rather than to place it stagnant in a container and move the container. We call this kind of thing "plumbing".
 
mbig said:
That, AGAIN, is a Ridiculous 'answer.' "someone wants to buy it" is not a justification.
You did NOT address my post:

mbig:
2. Your reasoning is funny. What's "useful" (and/or Profitable) for the FEW does not mean it's a good idea for everyone else.
It would be "useful" to some to take all the topsoil (or groundwater) from your county/state and ship it to China. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for most.​

And you dropped the inexplicable/incorrect [single] 'Source' objection.
Click to expand...

It is a justification for building it.
I reject both sources.
 
mbig said:
It's good to have North American sourced oil rather than Middle East oil, of course..
But all things are NOT equal aside from locale.
Most think it's just an oil pipeline: ho hum.
Fossil fuel vs Renewable is the issue. NO.
People think it's a 'straw in the ground' like an well. NO.
The 'oil', 'Asphalt' is more accurate, coming from the Canadian Tar Sands is Filthy business from Mining, transporting, refining, and dumping both Solid and airborne waste products from refining this nasty stuff.

Both articles cut to one short Paragraph, but I urge to read them both.

Keystone XL Pipeline carries tar sand, Earth's dirtiest fossil fuel - Business Insider
...First, there's mining. This covers all the oil sitting in sand near the surface Alberta's oil companies Strip away the local forest then dig the sand out of the ground. But the clumpy, sandy mixture would Constipate an 875-mile pipeline, so the companies mix it with water diverted from the Athabasca river. Each barrel of bitumen (that's the technical term for the tar sand) gets soaked in 2.4 barrels of water. Once it's used in mining, much of that water is too Poisonous to return to the river, so..."​


https://www.adn.com/commentary/arti...just-tar-sands-oil-it-would-carry/2015/02/05/

"...Koch Industries expects $100 Billion in profits if Keystone XL is built. The polluted air in Houston and the Texas Gulf coast is Not going to profit at all. And, once Refined, there remain huge tailing piles of residue much like coal clinkers whose dust blows into the air further polluting surrounding residential areas. Or will they Barge it out into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, "out of sight, out of mind?"".."​


It's the environment and populace down the center of the country, and eventually Gulf of Mexico (and Arctic Ocean), that are going truly pay the COST of Mining this crap. The low quality stuff they're sending us has no place else to go from land-locked Alberta.
Click to expand...
I am sure you researched the subject to know that the oil is currently shipping to the refinery, even without the pipeline. Therefore, the only real issue is whether shipping the oil via truck and train is more ecologically friendly than via pipeline.

Of course, your thorough research has already proven that it isn't even close. The pipeline is a much better way to transport the oil. So what is the real reason for the objection? I have a theory.

Given the apparent​ bile directed at the billionaire Koch brothers, it must be that you prefer the leftist billionaire Warren Buffet make the money. Surely your careful research exposed that he bought the BNSF railroad, which owns the rights to transport the oil.

You are clearly upset that billionaire Buffet will loose millions if he doesn't get to ship that nasty oil to the even nastier refinery.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
TO be able to send tar sands "oil" through a pipeline it has to be mixed with chemicals so toxsic that if leaked into the groud water with a leak, it will make the water undrinkable. The XL pipeline has already had large leaks and will continue to do so since the chemicals that allow the tar sands to flow, also slowly destroy the pipes it is shipped through. So, tell me that this is safer. If the Candians want to build a pipeline, let them send it to either their west or east coast.
 
humbolt said:
It's also more efficient and reliable. Fewer moving parts, and also, it's inherently more efficient to move the product itself rather than to place it stagnant in a container and move the container. We call this kind of thing "plumbing".
Click to expand...
Only if you want to dramatically increase the use it. THE Topic here.
As I pointed out above, we have virtually unlimited cleaner/more environmental (in and out) sources. ie, fracked NG.


fmw said:
It is a justification for building it.
I reject both sources.
Click to expand...
"someone wants to buy it" is empty nonsense. It'll work for making Crack too.
It's failed several times now.
"rejecting" (without reason) is empty, but at least you now see there was more than one source.



natsb said:
I am sure you researched the subject to know that the oil is currently shipping to the refinery, even without the pipeline. Therefore, the only real issue is whether shipping the oil via truck and train is more ecologically friendly than via pipeline.
Of course, your thorough research has already proven that it isn't even close. The pipeline is a much better way to transport the oil. So what is the real reason for the objection? I have a theory. Given the apparent​ bile directed at the billionaire Koch brothers, it must be that you prefer the leftist billionaire Warren Buffet make the money. Surely your careful research exposed that he bought the BNSF railroad, which owns the rights to transport the oil.
You are clearly upset that billionaire Buffet will loose millions if he doesn't get to ship that nasty oil to the even nastier refinery.
Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You're clearly hung up on some Left/Right, Buffett/Koch politics here.
The point of the OP is whether to increase the use of the Dirtiest/most destructive hydrocarbon source, not whether it's train or pipeline. We could easily triple fracking within One year to produce Cleaner (in and out) NG...
AND by doing so create Permanent High Paying American well-head Jobs, instead of Canadian Strip-Mining ones that produce vast devastation on their sites, excess waste at our sites, and Ruin Everyone's air and water.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Only if you want to dramatically increase the use it. THE Topic here.
As I pointed out above, we have virtually unlimited cleaner/more environmental (in and out) sources. ie, fracked NG.
Click to expand...

No doubt about it. We are still tied to oil for the immediate future though. I'd prefer we switch to NG to fuel our domestic car fleet, but that switch has yet to materialize, and I doubt it will any time soon. Either fuel - oil or NG - is most efficiently moved through a pipeline.
 
mbig said:
Only if you want to dramatically increase the use it. THE Topic here.
As I pointed out above, we have virtually unlimited cleaner/more environmental (in and out) sources. ie, fracked NG.


"someone wants to buy it" is empty nonsense. It'll work for making Crack too.
It's failed several times now.
"rejecting" (without reason) is empty, but at least you now see there was more than one source.



You're clearly hung up on some Left/Right, Buffett/Koch politics here.
The point of the OP is whether to increase the use of the Dirtiest/most destructive hydrocarbon source, not whether it's train or pipeline. We could easily triple fracking within One year to produce Cleaner (in and out) NG...
AND by doing so create Permanent High Paying American well-head Jobs, instead of Canadian Strip-Mining ones that produce vast devastation on their sites, excess waste at our sites, and Ruin Everyone's air and water.
Click to expand...

No reason not to do both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom