Let's get that pipeline built!

That's probably true....corporations pay our politicians quite handsomely to screw up our tax codes, such that the corporate liability is a fraction of what they really owe.

Still, I think this pipeline will eventually be built....it would sure be a lot safer than having thousands of railroad tanker cars traversing the nations rails every month. One way or another this oil WILL be processed, so the sensible solution would be to find the least hazardous means to do so.
 

Let's leave the petroleum HABIT behind and move on; I'm hoping to see Fusion energy production become a reality, before they drop me in the ground. That's probably a lot to hope for...
 
Don M. said:
That's probably true....corporations pay our politicians quite handsomely to screw up our tax codes, such that the corporate liability is a fraction of what they really owe.

Still, I think this pipeline will eventually be built....it would sure be a lot safer than having thousands of railroad tanker cars traversing the nations rails every month. One way or another this oil WILL be processed, so the sensible solution would be to find the least hazardous means to do so.
Click to expand...

How about let's leave the Tar Sands in the ground?
 
Fusion technology would certainly be the answer to the globes electrical needs. Lockheed recently announced a breakthrough in that arena, and perhaps in another 20 or 30 years such a power source may be practical. For transportation purposes, the most realistic replacement for gas/diesel might be Hydrogen fuel. The fusion energy could be used to break water down into its hydrogen/oxygen components, which would supply unlimited amounts of fuel, whose only by product would be water/steam. The biggest hurdle then would be to add Hydrogen pumps to 175,000 gas stations all over the nation.
 
We could leave the Tar Sands in the ground. We could also stop all this Fracking. We could also mothball all the coal fired power plants. Unfortunately, people want electricity for their homes, natural gas for their furnaces, and gas to fuel their cars, and all the trucks, etc., that bring all the products to market, and allow the farmers to grow enough food to feed us all.

"Tree Hugging" sounds good on paper, but if the environmentalists had their way, 80% of the people on this planet would soon starve or freeze to death. Those who were left would have to revert to a 15th century lifestyle. The answer lies in using and advancing our technologies to create the cleanest and most sustainable means of supplying the planets energy needs.

If I were King, I would like to see our government spending vast sums of money on renewable energy resources and infrastructure....instead of wasting 100's of billions per year on supporting welfare programs that discourage people from getting off their dead behinds, and doing something worthwhile to contribute to society.
 
Hyperbole from the left and POTUS.

QuickSilver said:
I Sure DO Ralphy!! I'm excited about tar sands oil spilling into our major aquifer so a Canadian company can get the oil to China and make huge profits. Heck... who cares that it will only create 35-50 permanant jobs.. and will not impact the price of gas at the pump for Americans. In fact we may even end up paying more, but who cares!! I'm just happy to see a foreign company will benefit at the price of our environment and add to the worlds dependence of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


Obviously some have not read the US State Department study that refutes pretty much all being claimed by environmentalists and POTUS.
There are thousands of jobs To the USA accruing from the pipeline. Billions of $$$ plus spin off dollars from peripheral businesses.
The pipeline is safer (than rail or road) according to the Federal State Dept Study.
Citing 'permanent jobs' (only) is a red herring as it suggests there is no employment benefit when the study(s) show major employment numbers in the thousands and payrolls in the billions.
Canada's oil is unlikely to go anywhere but to the USA from the XL, since the USA is importing from off shore by ship nearly 5 million barrels of oil a day.
The pipeline will also move USA oil from at least 2 USA States.
Additionaly it's rather inane to suggest that with more of auantity (OIL) available prices will increase. That contradicts the law of supply and demand.
Now while opinions are fine, facts can't be changed with bellicose hyperbole.

Read the study or you really have nothing to regurgitate but tree hugging propaganda.

BTW I'm citing facts, I made none of this up.

XL pipeline State Dept. Study

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.






 
Last edited:
QuickSilver said:
Breaking news! The pipeline vote failed in the Senate with 41 votes against.
Click to expand...


Yeh by one vote, but Senate numbers change in January and it might well pass then. If POTUS vetoes it he is against the majority of Republicans and Senators-Unions and business. He want's an ecological responsible (from a historical reference), regardless the impact on the economy or future oil reserves for the USA.
The USA has certainly improved reserves with shale fracking, but still import nearly 5 million barrels a day from off shore ships. Why rely on Arab -Iranian and Venezuelan oill when Canada can supply (as is the case now)?

Oil will remain an energy source for generations yet. Unless someone finds a way to convert sand to power..:playful:
 
[]Doo[]Der said:
Obviously some have not read the US State Department study that refutes pretty much all being claimed by environmentalists and POTUS.
There are thousands of jobs To the USA accruing from the pipeline. Billions of $$$ plus spin off dollars from peripheral businesses.
The pipeline is safer (than rail or road) according to the Federal State Dept Study.
Citing 'permanent jobs' (only) is a red herring as it suggests there is no employment benefit when the study(s) show major employment numbers in the thousands and payrolls in the billions.
Canada's oil is unlikely to go anywhere but to the USA from the XL, since the USA is importing from off shore by ship nearly 5 million barrels of oil a day.
The pipeline will also move USA oil from at least 2 USA States.
Additionaly it's rather inane to suggest that with more of auantity (OIL) available prices will increase. That contradicts the law of supply and demand.
Now while opinions are fine, facts can't be changed with bellicose hyperbole.

Read the study or you really have nothing to regurgitate but tree hugging propaganda.

BTW I'm citing facts, I made none of this up.

XL pipeline State Dept. Study

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.
Click to expand...

Have you read through the report you linked?? That report talks about the potential contamination of drinking water; polution of surface water; damage to water sources during construction; loss of wildlife habitat; additional impact on climate change; among other negative impacts. It very well clarifies that 42,000 jobs may be created during the two-year construction process. Only a tad over 1,000 of those jobs are actual construction jobs. In the areas where the construction is ongoing, McDonalds, etc will add some minimum wage employees. The report confirms that after the two-year construction the net job gain will be 35 full time and 15 part time jobs. Wow!!!

I have been one of those who only sees this pipeline as being money in the Koch brothers pocket, with no risk on their part. I still don't see how this project would benefit the average citizen of the U.S. If TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP wants to put $1 billion in escrow to cover replanting of wildlife habitat, dredging of any lakes and streams construction runoff ends up in, and as a guarantee there will be funds for cleaning up a major spill... go for it. Right now, TransCanada thinks they have the politics behind them to make the pipeline happen and are trying their best to push it through.
 
Yup, read it in its entirety. I concluded as did the study, no reason to not put the pipeline through on balance.

Fine, keep buying Arab (Saudi) and Venezuela oil by ship..5 million barrels/day coming in, remember the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Facts - Oceana



Carrying 53 million gallons, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran into Alaska's waters. Still environmental problems.

And yes they did study those items you referenced, but the conclusions...not sufficient to deny a pipeline when considering all the alternatives.
 
rkunsaw said:
We will soon see.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that BOTH houses have to have a 2/3 majority to override a veto.. SO even if they are able to convince 5 more Senators to vote to override, they still have to convince 22 more Representatives... not likely. Why would those who voted against it suddenly change their minds?
 
At a moment when climate action is more urgent than ever, building this pipeline would be a step into a past instead of a shift into a clean energy future. Keystone XL would represent a long-term commitment to the expansion of dangerous tar sands oil when we need to be investing in safe, renewable sources of energy instead.
 
Think if all that effort and money were put into Solar.. I was reading that if you look at all the rooftops in major cities, something like only 5% have solar panels. Considering that solar panels can reduce a buildings energy requirements by 40% or more... I see it as a huge potential to decrease fossil fuel need.
 
Josiah09 said:
At a moment when climate action is more urgent than ever, building this pipeline would be a step into a past instead of a shift into a clean energy future. Keystone XL would represent a long-term commitment to the expansion of dangerous tar sands oil when we need to be investing in safe, renewable sources of energy instead.
Click to expand...

A very good point, Josiah.
 
QuickSilver said:
Think if all that effort and money were put into Solar.. I was reading that if you look at all the rooftops in major cities, something like only 5% have solar panels. Considering that solar panels can reduce a buildings energy requirements by 40% or more... I see it as a huge potential to decrease fossil fuel need.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want this administration to invest in more solar energy? http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Solyndra-Scandal-Green-Energy/2015/01/30/id/621782/
 
I'm not against wind and solar energy. I would also like to see improvement in other renewable energy sources. But none of these are able to supply our current energy needs. Fossil fuels are now. The oil is being shipped from Canada now. The pipeline is a safer way to ship it and would provide many much needed jobs.

Why are you against safety and jobs?
 
rkunsaw said:
I'm not against wind and solar energy. I would also like to see improvement in other renewable energy sources. But none of these are able to supply our current energy needs. Fossil fuels are now. The oil is being shipped from Canada now. The pipeline is a safer way to ship it and would provide many much needed jobs.

Why are you against safety and jobs?
Click to expand...

I'm not against safety... only against damage to our environment... A contamination of the aquifer would be FOREVER... Also... I don't see the creation of 35 permanent jobs being worth that risk. Leaving the tar sands in the ground would be best for everyone, except of course the Corporations that are looking to profit from its sale to CHINA.

Solar and wind would provide create far more jobs than keystone could ever dream of.
 
QuickSilver said:
SO? A red herring.. why bring that OLD crap up? However.. while we are at it.. can you explain to us just WHY you would rather have a pipeline than to invest in solar and wind? Seriously.. what is your rationale? I mean other than Obama derangement?
Click to expand...

Obama's the fly in the ointment attempting to build his legacy. Every study supports the pipeline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top