• 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

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,068
Reaction score
10,278
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CASSELTON, N.D. — Many residents evacuated a southeastern North Dakota town overnight after a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, and officials warned that acrid smoke could blow into the area.

BNSF said both trains had more than 100 cars each.

The incident will likely prompt discussion about the safety of transporting oil by cross-country rail. Fears of catastrophic derailments were particularly stoked after a train carrying crude from North Dakota's Bakken oil patch crashed in Quebec last summer. Forty-seven people died in the ensuing fire.
Officials warn of toxic smoke near ND derailment - US news | NBC News
 
beats me,,, saw the news item, thought it "poll worthy" (obviously not SPELL worthy)...
 
I have always thought pipelines were environmentally safer than tankers, trucks or trains and is the only reason I am for the construction of the pipeline. All the other reasons the right gives about jobs and cheaper oil are BS.
 
yea, why should we care if it ****s up major aquifer systems
its not like we, and our kids and grandkids, need clean water
the koch brothers need more money ... which is what this will accomplish
 
The equivalent of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day will soon be moving from western Canada into the U.S.—even if the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline is never built.

The energy industry is moving full steam ahead to move crude on rail cars—a fast growing business, booming along with increased North American oil production and already responsible for moving most of the oil out of the Bakken region in North Dakota

The stretch of Keystone pipeline, which is opposed by environmentalists, would send oil from Alberta, through Montana, across South Dakota and Nebraska, to the Cushing extension in Kansas and then south into the southern leg of the Keystone and on to the Gulf Coast refining area
Canadian oil rides south even without Keystone pipeline

I dunno, but even if ND isn't tapped in Canadian oil will increase by train
 
The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, and crude oil from the northern United States, "primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast" of Texas.[notes 1]

[2] The products to be shipped include synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and Bakken synthetic crude oil and light crude oil produced from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota
Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so the oil IS coming, and it is coming not from just Canada....Pipelines have there own set of problems, but rail isn't so safe as we just saw.
 
I have always thought pipelines were environmentally safer than tankers, trucks or trains and is the only reason I am for the construction of the pipeline. All the other reasons the right gives about jobs and cheaper oil are BS.

Pipeline construction doesn't create jobs?
 
yea, why should we care if it ****s up major aquifer systems
its not like we, and our kids and grandkids, need clean water
the koch brothers need more money ... which is what this will accomplish

**** up what aquifers? Is this fear monhering, or do you have credible evidence to support your claim?
 
The sooner we switch to 100% Renewable Energy, the better. Kick the old oily drug habit. It's just a big monopoly anyway. Not patriotic, not beneficial, not healthy, not good for the planet.

What are we waiting on, then? Oh, wait, green energy doesn't work on a large scale the way that fossil fuels do.
 
Not for long...how many jobs are there in transorting it now, without the pipeline?
Pipeline construction doesn't create jobs?
 
The sooner we switch to 100% Renewable Energy, the better. Kick the old oily drug habit. It's just a big monopoly anyway. Not patriotic, not beneficial, not healthy, not good for the planet.
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.
 
Not for long...how many jobs are there in transorting it now, without the pipeline?

I know people who don't do anything but pipeline work. Each job is temporary, but it's like road construction, the hands move on to another job. I'm on a pipeline job, now and I'm grateful for it, because this time of the year is historically slow.

You can build all the pipelines you want, but you're still going to need trucks and trains. Pipelines are't kill jobs, IMO.
 
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.

No one ever talks about the millions of batteries containing toxic chemicals that will need to be disposed of with millions of electric cars. Renewable nutters think it's a panacea.
 
No one ever talks about the millions of batteries containing toxic chemicals that will need to be disposed of with millions of electric cars. Renewable nutters think it's a panacea.
That's what New Jersey is for.
 
No one ever talks about the millions of batteries containing toxic chemicals that will need to be disposed of with millions of electric cars. Renewable nutters think it's a panacea.

Greetings, American. :2wave:

You have doubtless received many kudos on your tag line...I would like to add mine to that crowd! :thumbs: How did Madison know that the ACA would come along hundreds of years after his death, though? Humans will be humans if they have an agenda? :mrgreen:
 
Greetings, American. :2wave:

You have doubtless received many kudos on your tag line...I would like to add mine to that crowd! :thumbs: How did Madison know that the ACA would come along hundreds of years after his death, though? Humans will be humans if they have an agenda? :mrgreen:

Times have changed, but Man has not.
 
No one ever talks about the millions of batteries containing toxic chemicals that will need to be disposed of with millions of electric cars. Renewable nutters think it's a panacea.

Nickel hydride batteries use up electrolytes not plate. Many of the old Edison batteries from the early 1900s are still in use. Lead acid batteries use up the plates and create lots of waste, not so with nickel hydride.
 
Nickel hydride batteries use up electrolytes not plate. Many of the old Edison batteries from the early 1900s are still in use. Lead acid batteries use up the plates and create lots of waste, not so with nickel hydride.
The energy density is the problem with batteries.
Energy density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no practical way to run a tractor, long haul truck, or airliner on batteries.
I suppose we could create an electrical highway, where the power is metered at the
vehicle, but that would take years to develop into something useful.
 

Huh?

The keystone should be built because the alternative path is worse. It's going to be built, the question is what do we risk, many of the salmon fisheries of Alaska, or a big watershed of the Midwest? Both are bad options, but the Midwest is easier to clean up than the Canadian and Alaskan areas.

We can fix the train issue by having better containment. Nuclear waste containers can take a direct train hit and shrug it off. It's just that it's expensive.
 
No one ever talks about the millions of batteries containing toxic chemicals that will need to be disposed of with millions of electric cars. Renewable nutters think it's a panacea.

That's easy.

Plasma Induction or thermodepolymerization. Both will take care of the problem quite nicely.
 
yes, if the transCANADA pipeline were so environmentally safe it would be built across CANADA
the canadians don't want the environmental risk
neither should the USA
read this and weep: Keystone XL pipeline may threaten aquifer that irrigates much of the central U.S. - The Washington Post

Canada has more enviro-idiots than the US does. That being said, you usually build the pipeline from the source, not through the source.

Bottomline: the oil is getting shipped either way, like it, or not.
 
yes, if the transCANADA pipeline were so environmentally safe it would be built across CANADA
the canadians don't want the environmental risk
neither should the USA
read this and weep: Keystone XL pipeline may threaten aquifer that irrigates much of the central U.S. - The Washington Post

The Enbridge 'Northern Gateway' route across British Columbia to Kitimat just got federal approval. It'll take awhile to win hearts and minds along the route but it looks like a go. Also, there's interest in a MacKenzie River route to Tuktoyaktuk on the Arctic. With the expanding ice-free season and access to both Asia and Europe, it might yet be an option.
There's lots of pipelines in Canada. The Trans-Mountain line to Vancouver is about to be doubled in capacity, if it can pass environmental review (and it probably will).
But yes, there's a lot of resistance. Especially involving unresolved First Nations disputes, which are taken seriously here.
 
Back
Top Bottom