• 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!

Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

Should we build Keysone oil pipeline?

  • yes - infrastructure is a wise investment

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • yes: but only because the oil trains are so dangerous

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • no: rely on the oil trains, Keystone has it's own problem

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • no: Keystone and oil pipelines are not needed

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
Its an export pipeline, the oil won't even stay in the us.
 
That's easy.

Plasma Induction or thermodepolymerization. Both will take care of the problem quite nicely.

I wonder how much energy those consume.
 
I wonder how much energy those consume.

Thermodepolymerization is a net positive when you add back heat capture.

Plasma Induction is negative on start up, but you produce electricity, inert glass slag and you get rid of waste. We should replace every landfill and incinerator with plasma induction waste management.
 
Bottomline: the oil is getting shipped either way, like it, or not.

This is one of the few things you've gotten right here. It's going to get built and the environmental damage risk from routing in through to the pacific through Alaska and the Western Canadian provinces is significantly higher then the current planned route.

However, TransCanada has a shotty reputation and has a history of spills, bad construction, shoddy workmanship so on and so forth.
 
I agree we should move away from organic hydrocarbon fuels,
the problem is, only one technology is capable of filling the gap right now,
and that is man made hydrocarbons.
All of the other technologies, like electric cars and the like, do not have enough
energy density to grow and transport the food that keeps everyone alive.
For home electric use, we do have a lot of room to improve,
and we should work in that direction.

We are exporting 400,000 barrels of refined gasoline today as our own consumption is at pre 2000 levels and dropping. The Keystone pipeline is also for EXPORT of refined gasoline and is not for US consumption...it just isn't needed here. Why should we take all the risks of transporting it and the pollution from refining it when it is purely for Canada's and private enterprise profit? The Canadian people have decided the risk is not worth it to them and refuse to build a refinery to handle the sticky oil or even a pipeline to the West coast so they could export it themselves. Why do you think that is?
 
This is one of the few things you've gotten right here. It's going to get built and the environmental damage risk from routing in through to the pacific through Alaska and the Western Canadian provinces is significantly higher then the current planned route.

However, TransCanada has a shotty reputation and has a history of spills, bad construction, shoddy workmanship so on and so forth.

There are standards that have be met, as far as weld integrity. It's doubtful that there will be any shoddy work.
 
I wonder how much energy those consume.
Thermodepolymerization is for organics - i.e. the plastics only. Plasma induction is expensive - not at all cost effective. It costs much more to recycle the used batteries than new ones cost. The key is that such things are available, but aren't in use because they are cost prohibitive. The disposal problem remains.
 
There are standards that have be met, as far as weld integrity. It's doubtful that there will be any shoddy work.

yep, just like the oil derricks in the gulf
spot on, as usual, apdst
 
Better than the green energy industry's record. Eh, JB? ;)

Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report | Fox News

And, unlike the green energy, the oil and gas industry actually creates jobs and doesn't rip-off the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.


problem is apdst, we are not discussing green technology
this thread is about something quite opposite
dirty **** we do not need in our nation's aquifer system
please try to keep up
 
problem is apdst, we are not discussing green technology
this thread is about something quite opposite
dirty **** we do not need in our nation's aquifer system
please try to keep up

Ahhhh! So, information that blows you point out of the water is suddenly off-limits. Got it, my friend. ;)

Since you want to talking keeping our aquifers--which nothing to do with the GOM--why do you willfully ignore a solar panel company that released toxic chemicals into the aquifer system and walked off? Where's you condemnation of that?

Is it really about the environment, justabubba, or is it just about politics?
 
As of this moment, twice as many want it as don't. Let's build it. We could call it the Obamaline and paint it red. He gets a real red line, and we get some oil to mess around with. It's a win-win.
 
As of this moment, twice as many want it as don't. Let's build it. We could call it the Obamaline and paint it red. He gets a real red line, and we get some oil to mess around with. It's a win-win.

let's don't and say we did
what we get is an oily mess
and unpotable water
 
Keystone is in red states--let it be
 
As of this moment, twice as many want it as don't. Let's build it. We could call it the Obamaline and paint it red. He gets a real red line, and we get some oil to mess around with. It's a win-win.

:thumbs: ... :lamo: ... :thumbs:
 
let's don't and say we did
what we get is an oily mess
and unpotable water
We could if we aren't careful. We'll be careful. The 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the country are far less a hazard than driving your car. The danger of a pipeline failure is roughly the same as the danger posed by flying a commercial airliner, and usually less catastrophic in terms of human life.
 
We could if we aren't careful. We'll be careful. The 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the country are far less a hazard than driving your car. The danger of a pipeline failure is roughly the same as the danger posed by flying a commercial airliner, and usually less catastrophic in terms of human life.

yep
no way a derrick in the gulf of mexico could generate a massive environmental disaster
 
beats me,,, saw the news item, thought it "poll worthy" (obviously not SPELL worthy)...

No! Just build more solar panels and Prius'
 
We are exporting 400,000 barrels of refined gasoline today as our own consumption is at pre 2000 levels and dropping. The Keystone pipeline is also for EXPORT of refined gasoline and is not for US consumption...it just isn't needed here. Why should we take all the risks of transporting it and the pollution from refining it when it is purely for Canada's and private enterprise profit? The Canadian people have decided the risk is not worth it to them and refuse to build a refinery to handle the sticky oil or even a pipeline to the West coast so they could export it themselves. Why do you think that is?
We want to bring in raw material, and export finished product, Oil refining is one of the few manufacturing
sectors the US still has.
We already have refineries and expertise that can handle the heavy crude, Canada did not.
Don't knock private enterprise profit too much, it is where all the money in this country comes from.

The west coast pipeline, was just political posturing, I do not think the Canadians would ever
accept a pipeline through Banff or Jasper.
 
yep
no way a derrick in the gulf of mexico could generate a massive environmental disaster
I was talking about underground pipelines - not oil rigs in the sea. Let me know exactly what sea or ocean the Keystone pipeline crosses. I've been through middle of the country, and I must have missed it somehow.
 
I was talking about underground pipelines - not oil rigs in the sea. Let me know exactly what sea or ocean the Keystone pipeline crosses. I've been through middle of the country, and I must have missed it somehow.

so different. commitment given that such a spill will not occur - until it does
try this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/national/15spill.html?_r=0

as soon as the keystone pipeline results in a massive environmental calamity, you know your side will castigate Obama, insisting he let it happen
stupid ****ers want things both ways
 
You forgot the option of "I'm not opposed to pipelines in general, but I don't like Keystone in particular." The Keystone project is just oil companies figuring out the easiest way to export oil to China.
 
so different. commitment given that such a spill will not occur - until it does
try this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/national/15spill.html?_r=0

as soon as the keystone pipeline results in a massive environmental calamity, you know your side will castigate Obama, insisting he let it happen
stupid ****ers want things both ways
There will always be accidents in anything man attempts. It almost sounds as if you're salivating over an accident that hasn't happened. Again, there are accidents that happen with pipelines, cars, trains, planes, ships, power grids, production, construction, medical care - anything humans attempt. With 2.5 million miles of underground pipe, we're doing pretty well all in all in the disaster department. I'm not looking to blame anybody for attempting to do something. I'm a little miffed with those who don't try.
 
Back
Top Bottom