Why do Americans want the Keystone XL Pipeline so badly? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

EonBlue · 01-06-2015, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

Both modes of transport for tarsands should be avoided, and there is no good route through Northern MN wetlands and rivers. The forecast for climate change based on models where the tarsands are fully exploited show this region making an awkward and fiery transition from forests and wetlands to savanna.

Keystone's threat to the Oglala aquifer is based on studies of the 1979 spill site in MN. It is a shame that the study can't protect this area from more crude going through the leaky pipes here, but at least it has helped slow Keytone related carbon emissions.

Oh for fucks sake now you have completely jumped the shark. What a load of bullshit.

.

dyna mo · 01-06-2015, 06:45 PM

canada will sell tar sands oil, it doesn't matter what pipe it flows through. tar sand oil doesn't hinge on this here particular pipe.

EonBlue · 01-06-2015, 06:54 PM

Back to the OP and this point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

But forgetting pollution and dangers for a moment, the XL Pipeline would ship Canadian oil to Texas, not the other way around. The US would depend in part, on Canada for its energy needs. Why then would the US want this? If you're drilling and making your own oil and trying for energy independence, and since the pipeline would be potentially very dangerous, why would you want it?

The US already depends, in large part, on Canada for it's energy needs.

The US uses around 20 million barrels of oil per day. It produces about 9 million barrels a day on it's own. The other 11 million barrels are imported and about 3.5 million of those come from Canada.

Take Canadian oil out of the equation and the US is left importing more oil from far less desirable countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. All of that extra overseas oil is coming in via tanker. What do you think is more dangerous and less environmentally friendly - tanker or pipeline? Take your nose out of Obama's ass before you answer that.

Opposition to the pipeline is strictly political. There is no rational or logical reason to oppose it on environmental grounds unless you propose to stop the flow of oil from all sources.

.

seksi · 01-06-2015, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Opposition to the pipeline is strictly political. There is no rational or logical reason to oppose it on environmental grounds unless you propose to stop the flow of oil from all sources.

Stopping the flow of oil from all sources isn't possible or reasonable, and I am not sure that it is anyone's goal.

It is however the goal of a lot of climate activists following Bill McKibben and that kook from NASA JPL, Hensen, to stop or slow the exploitation of the tarsands because it is the dirtiest and least efficient available form of fossil fuels, with massive contamination at the point of extraction in Canada, greater carbon emissions coming from its transport and processing.

They want to preserve life on Earth as we know it by reducing CO2 and stabilizing it below 350 parts per million. That's why they named their org 350

Here's that Hansen quote that is their rally cry:

Quote:

?If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.?
-Dr. James Hansen

Rochard · 01-06-2015, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Exactly. That's why people who oppose this in the name of the environment are wrong. Unless they plan to stop the flow of oil altogether they will be causing more damage to the environment by forcing the oil onto trains and tankers.

They are just idiots who will say or do anything so they can pin a "green" badge to their Che Guevara t-shirts.

.

I'm tired of this "environmental" crap.

Here in California we've been working on this bullet train for years. It's going to connect Northern California with Southern California, and it's been tied up in court for fifteen years. This is such a no brainer it's not funny - do you want tens of thousands of gas guzzling cars running between Norcal and Socal daily, or a handful of environmentally friendly trains doing the same route?

Rochard · 01-06-2015, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

The whole tarsands oil tankers blowing up a whole town phenomenon is, so far, restricted to Canada, but Casselton, ND has had at least two close calls, once with spectacular effect....

I would believe that.... But when a train carrying propane caught fire in my home town a few years ago and they evacuated thirty thousand people I think differently. Possibility of explosion at Lincoln propane fire increases | news10.net

It's really scary when they suddenly evacuate your entire town. And it's a pain in the ass.

bronco67 · 01-06-2015, 09:36 PM

You should ask, "why does Congress want it so badly?" Pockets will get lined. Not talking about ordinary middle class Americans. The pockets of Republican politicians and some very rich people.

Trend · 01-06-2015, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

May 16, 2014
A massive cleanup may continue for a week after streets flooded, two people were hospitalized and a strip club was evacuated when an early-morning crude oil pipeline break sent a geyser of black goo spurting into the air Thursday.
Streets were closed in Atwater Village near Glendale northeast of downtown Los Angeles after approximately 10,000 gallons of crude oil -- enough to fill a backyard swimming pool -- spilled over a half-mile area. An above-ground 20-inch pipeline broke around 12:15 a.m. Thursday near 5175 W. San Fernando Rd.

[IMG]http://media.nbclosangeles.com/images/1205*675/oil+spill+atwater+2.jpg[/IMG]

Yep, pipelines have never caused any negative environmental impact

.

I know right?!?! And don't forget ... we need to ban earth too!

Just in 2013 alone ....

1. Typhoon Haiyan in Phillipines

On Nov. 8, Typhoon Haiyan tore through the Phillippines, claiming more than 6,000 lives and injuring a further 27,000. Nearly 4 million Filipinos were rendered homeless from the storm's impact. Haiyan is widely recognized as one of the worst storms to hit the planet in recent history.

2. Consecutive, 'Island-Creating' Earthquakes in Pakistan

On Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013, a 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck southwest Pakistan, followed by another 6.8 shake on Saturday. The earthquakes claimed more than 800 lives. Recuperation continues in this seismically active region of the Indian subcontinent.

3. Tornadoes in Oklahoma

On May 20, a giant tornado with 200 mph winds took a 12-mile path through the Oklahoma City area, uprooting homes and impacting two elementary schools. Twenty four people were killed, and more than 100 others were injured. The week prior, as many as 10 tornadoes hit North Texas, killing six.

4. Cyclone Phailin in India

Nearly 1 million people were evacuated before destructive Cyclone Phailin hit India in October 2013.

The cyclone, packing winds of 155 mph with gusts of up to 190 mph, hit the Bay of Bengal. The evacuation came as an attempt to avoid mass casualities similar to a 1999 cyclone in the same area. Whereas Cyclone Odisha claimed 10,000 lives in 1999, Phailin's destructions took 27.

5. Droughts in Africa

In June 2013, a longitudinal study on the droughts in Africa concluded that these droughts have caused severe famines and killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1970's - 2013.

6. Simultaneous Hurricane Duo in Mexico

In Mexico, Hurricane Ingrid, a Category 1 storm, converged with Hurricane Manuel, also a Category 1 storm, within hours to claim more than 169 lives in Mexico. Damage was estimated to cost more than $4.2 billion.

Tens of thousands of people were trapped in the aftermath of the dual storms, with over a million inhabitants affected in some way. Ensuing floods destroyed thousands of homes and shut down an airport, stranding tourists. Frantic looting and corruption followed the storms, adding to the misery of the aftermath and turning famous tourist spots such as Acapulco into a hideout for violent drug gangs.

Fucking Earth

seksi · 01-06-2015, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's really scary when they suddenly evacuate your entire town. And it's a pain in the ass.

Both pipeline & rail tank car fossil fuel delivery schemes have hazards, have lead to loss of life and damage to property in leaks and explosions. After the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Keystone XL tastelessly employed the loss of life to show emotionally, if not statistically, that rail was dangerous, and pipelines might not be so bad, just a few small workplaces deaths here and there, going unnoticed by the press.

Here in MN at recent pipeline permitting process hearings we've heard that Clearbrook still does not have the firefighting capacity to put out a fire in the pumping station even 7 years after the fatal explosion. Last year the state legislature got a little more for safety out of the pipelines and the railroads handling alike tarsands from the Canadian and North Dakota booms.

I fucking love environmentalism, because we still have a little wildness left in MN, like the boundary waters canoe area, and tens of thousands of First Nations people that still depend on traditional wild foods like wild rice and game for their sustenance and livelihood.

When people lose that sort of connection with the land, they treat the whole world like its just a concrete parking lot and open sewer to piss on and toss their litter into.

I also love that some of these edges of wilderness have fiber optic to the curb, even in rural areas and on some of the reservations. We need a better business model than resource extraction and toxic sludge transport.

There may not be any money in internet porn, but it doesn't seem to require subsidy or tax-increment financing like pro sports stadiums do, and it doesn't explode or cause traumatic brain injury either.

Rochard · 01-06-2015, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

Both pipeline & rail tank car fossil fuel delivery schemes have hazards, have lead to loss of life and damage to property in leaks and explosions. After the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Keystone XL tastelessly employed the loss of life to show emotionally, if not statistically, that rail was dangerous, and pipelines might not be so bad, just a few small workplaces deaths here and there, going unnoticed by the press.

Here in MN at recent pipeline permitting process hearings we've heard that Clearbrook still does not have the firefighting capacity to put out a fire in the pumping station even 7 years after the fatal explosion. Last year the state legislature got a little more for safety out of the pipelines and the railroads handling alike tarsands from the Canadian and North Dakota booms.

I fucking love environmentalism, because we still have a little wildness left in MN, like the boundary waters canoe area, and tens of thousands of First Nations people that still depend on traditional wild foods like wild rice and game for their sustenance and livelihood.

When people lose that sort of connection with the land, they treat the whole world like its just a concrete parking lot and open sewer to piss on and toss their litter into.

I also love that some of these edges of wilderness have fiber optic to the curb, even in rural areas and on some of the reservations. We need a better business model than resource extraction and toxic sludge transport.

There may not be any money in internet porn, but it doesn't seem to require subsidy or tax-increment financing like pro sports stadiums do, and it doesn't explode or cause traumatic brain injury either.

But the oil is going to pass through one way or another..... There is really not much sense debating it. One way or another the oil is going to make it to the gulf of Mexico.

Rochard · 01-06-2015, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trend

I know right?!?! And don't forget ... we need to ban earth too!

I get her point, I really do. But the disasters she mentions were so small they didn't make the front page news. I surely never heard of the environmental damage from "pipeline spills".

Sure enough, when that pipeline into Phoenix broke no one asked about the "environmental impact". Everyone said "Oh shit, there is no gas, what are we doing to do?".

And we already have the pipelines. Some quick reading today on the subject gave me the impression that the Keystone Pipeline isn't one pipeline, but a network of pipelines - most of which are already built and already operating.

2MuchMark · 01-06-2015, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Back to the OP and this point:

The US already depends, in large part, on Canada for it's energy needs.

The US uses around 20 million barrels of oil per day. It produces about 9 million barrels a day on it's own. The other 11 million barrels are imported and about 3.5 million of those come from Canada.

Take Canadian oil out of the equation and the US is left importing more oil from far less desirable countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. All of that extra overseas oil is coming in via tanker. What do you think is more dangerous and less environmentally friendly - tanker or pipeline? Take your nose out of Obama's ass before you answer that.

Opposition to the pipeline is strictly political. There is no rational or logical reason to oppose it on environmental grounds unless you propose to stop the flow of oil from all sources.

.

I agree with what you said, but the opposition is rational, and, armchair environmentalists like me don't want it to stop necessarily. What I would love to see is a report on special consideration to safety, and maybe a cap on how much can be pumped based on CO2 levels in the air, etc. You have to admit that the oil industry has done a terrible job cleaning up its messes, and cocks like the Kochs have flat-out lied again and again to get their way.

2MuchMark · 01-07-2015, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

You should ask, "why does Congress want it so badly?" Pockets will get lined. Not talking about ordinary middle class Americans. The pockets of Republican politicians and some very rich people.

True.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trend

I know right?!?! And don't forget ... we need to ban earth too!:

Trend, those are natural disasters that people can't do anything to stop. Then again, increased hurricane and typhoon strength is a part of global warming, which of course is due to man-made pollution.

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

Stopping the flow of oil from all sources isn't possible or reasonable, and I am not sure that it is anyone's goal.

It is however the goal of a lot of climate activists following Bill McKibben and that kook from NASA JPL, Hensen, to stop or slow the exploitation of the tarsands because it is the dirtiest and least efficient available form of fossil fuels, with massive contamination at the point of extraction in Canada, greater carbon emissions coming from its transport and processing.

Yes, many people want to do away with oil and fossil fuels altogether.

Carbon emissions is the most ridiculous reason to oppose the oil sands. And I can't figure out why people are so opposed to extracting oil from the ground but have no complaints about gold, copper, iron, nickle, silver, aluminum, bauxite, uranium, etc., etc., etc.

People should think of the oil sands as the world's largest clean up operation. A shit ton of oil was spilled there and we are just cleaning up like people do with any oil spill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm tired of this "environmental" crap.

Here in California we've been working on this bullet train for years. It's going to connect Northern California with Southern California, and it's been tied up in court for fifteen years. This is such a no brainer it's not funny - do you want tens of thousands of gas guzzling cars running between Norcal and Socal daily, or a handful of environmentally friendly trains doing the same route?

The trains may be environmentally friendly but building that high speed rail line is going to be a boondoggle of epic proportions and may be the final nail in the coffin of the economy of California. Good idea or not there is no money to pay for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Then again, increased hurricane and typhoon strength is a part of global warming, which of course is due to man-made pollution.

Wrong and wrong again. When are you going to stop repeating the same baseless claims that have been proven wrong over and over again?

.

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 09:51 AM

**********, it seems the basic assertion here is the USA/BO should step in and NOT approve this pipeline since Canada can't be bothered with being environmentally friendly on its own.

Not trying to make that sound over harsh, but it seems like that's the logic being applied.

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

**********, it seems the basic assertion here is the USA/BO should step in and NOT approve this pipeline since Canada can't be bothered with being environmentally friendly on its own.

Not trying to make that sound over harsh, but it seems like that's the logic being applied.

The funny thing is that it is more environmentally friendly to move the oil by pipeline than by rail. So there seems to be some sort of failure of logic if that is the reasoning against it.

I suspect that there is someone making a lot of money moving that oil by rail and the pipeline threatens that gravy train. Because if it's the oil itself that they are against then why not move to block it by rail as well?

This is probably just a classic case of money and corruption and which lobbyists the president is beholden to.

.

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The funny thing is that it is more environmentally friendly to move the oil by pipeline than by rail. So there seems to be some sort of failure of logic if that is the reasoning against it.

I suspect that there is someone making a lot of money moving that oil by rail and the pipeline threatens that gravy train. Because if it's the oil itself that they are against then why not move to block it by rail as well?

This is probably just a classic case of money and corruption and which lobbyists the president is beholden to.

.

1 million barrels per day @ $100 per.

and I suspect American people don't really give a shit about the pipeline because as rochard points out, it's just another fucking pipe amongst many and eh, we like our canadian neighbors so wtf.

p.s. oil will rebound just as fast as it crashed, if not quicker.

seksi · 01-07-2015, 10:36 AM

Here is the message as I see it:

Transcanada (foreign pipeline behind Keystone XL) is unsafe The Canadian government admits Transcanada whistleblower Evan Vokes claims are valid.

Enbridge is unsafe. Enbridge is the foreign pipeline operator trying to sneak a Keystone XL sized tar sands pipeline expansion through in MN. Both their rail tank cars and their pipelines have been shown to be unsafe and they have been fined for numerous accidents involving negligence leading to death and spills.

Rail tank cars filled with tar sands products are unsafe, e.g. Lac-Mégantic killed 47 people. Rail is just as dangerous as pipelines!

Light sweet crude is preferable if you need petroleum-based energy, it is cleaner to produce, and today it is on sale. Turns out there is less demand, and the speculators bubble has burst for one reason or another (petrodollar warfare with Russia?).

Fact is Obama will veto Keystone XL and the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will be able to sustain the veto. Hopefully the Senate and the Obama administration will look into the scope creep on the Enbridge border crossing permits, too.

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

Rail tank cars filled with tar sands products are unsafe, e.g. Lac-Mégantic killed 47 people. Rail is just as dangerous as pipelines!

Light sweet crude is preferable if you need petroleum-based energy, it is cleaner to produce, and today it is on sale. Turns out there is less demand, and the speculators bubble has burst for one reason or another (petrodollar warfare with Russia?).

Fact is Obama will veto Keystone XL and the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will be able to sustain the veto. Hopefully the Senate and the Obama administration will look into the scope creep on the Enbridge border crossing permits, too.

Oil from the oil sands is "sour crude". Almost all of the oil from the Middle East is also sour crude. The oil from Mexico, Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico is sour crude.

That covers much of the oil imported into the US. So you can stop importing our sour crude oil and instead ship it in by tanker from all of those other countries. Because oil tankers are super safe and never spill, right?

Re: your link above:

The train that exploded in Lac Megantic was carrying oil from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota. The oil from that location is sweet crude.

And rail is more dangerous than pipelines!

So wrong on many points.

.

thabootypro · 01-07-2015, 11:54 AM

Its an unnecessary asset

seksi · 01-07-2015, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The train that exploded in Lac Megantic was carrying oil from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota. The oil from that location is sweet crude.

Why was Lac-Mégantic crude oil so flammable?: Authorities want closer look at cargo from train disaster

Quote:

Some shale oil has been found to contain hydrogen sulphide vapour ? a flammable, corrosive, and highly explosive compound. Bakken crude is known to hold considerable amounts of flammable hydrogen sulphide gas.

The Lac-Megantic crash came just a couple of months after pipeline company Enbridge Inc. presented documents to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stating that it refused to carry Bakken oil with extremely high levels of hydrogen sulphide in its lines.

The company explained to the commission that the sulphide posed a serious risk to the health and safety of workers that came into close contact with the substance.

In Canada, federal government regulation and safety standards do not distinguish between different types of crude oil, Keith Stewart of Greenpeace said in a recent interview.

He added that they are all labelled as Class 3 flammable liquids for transportation purposes, even though the chemical make-up could make one type more explosive than another. Stewart said the regulatory failure to distinguish between different types of crude could cost lives in the future.

So now Enbridge wants to pump Bakken shale oil in the sandpiper line parallel to the Canadian tarsands Alberta Clipper line 67?

The point is the new sources of oil are more expensive to produce, produce more CO2, are unknown quantities in transport that appear more dangerous, and they are not going to be admitted into the U.S. via the final Keystone XL leg.

Canadian rail car transport of oil is not welcome to pass through MN, and neither will be the pipelines. There is no need for MN to accept the risk. I don't think Enbridge is going to get its Certificate of Need from the MN PUC, and it's going to be under scrutiny for its "fuck you, regulators and U.S. State Department" approach of just doing it, like Nike.

Trading and grading oil is not my business, so I make mistakes, but it is getting interesting: High Noon on the Gulf Coast: Canada, Saudi oil set for showdown

12clicks · 01-07-2015, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I don't know about that...

I know.....

12clicks · 01-07-2015, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm tired of this "environmental" crap.

Here in California we've been working on this bullet train for years. It's going to connect Northern California with Southern California, and it's been tied up in court for fifteen years. This is such a no brainer it's not funny - do you want tens of thousands of gas guzzling cars running between Norcal and Socal daily, or a handful of environmentally friendly trains doing the same route?

people are making a 6 hour drive daily?

The train is a boondoggle

dready · 01-07-2015, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The US would depend in part, on Canada for its energy needs.

The US has always depended on Canada for a third of its energy imports. We're pretty dependable.

Joshua G · 01-07-2015, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seksi

Stopping the flow of oil from all sources isn't possible or reasonable, and I am not sure that it is anyone's goal.

It is however the goal of a lot of climate activists following Bill McKibben and that kook from NASA JPL, Hensen, to stop or slow the exploitation of the tarsands because it is the dirtiest and least efficient available form of fossil fuels, with massive contamination at the point of extraction in Canada, greater carbon emissions coming from its transport and processing.

They want to preserve life on Earth as we know it by reducing CO2 and stabilizing it below 350 parts per million. That's why they named their org 350

Here's that Hansen quote that is their rally cry:

keeping earth under 350ppm co2 is a pipedream as long as civilization depends on oil. I get perplexed why this project gets targeted for opposition in the face of the magnitude of global oil consumption. when this project fails, something less efficient & more expensive & more polluting & off the headlines will substitute. There is no stopping oil unless humans stop creating billions of babies or some wacko genius like elon musk comes up with a gamechanger.

since the left fails to ever address the true problem - overpopulation - theres no reason to wring hands over the future. humans will fall into another dark ages when the oil dries up. just feel lucky we will be long dead.

SuckOnThis · 01-07-2015, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

since the left fails to ever address the true problem - overpopulation - theres no reason to wring hands over the future.

The left is for abortion, what do you mean they fail to address it? How does the righties address overpopulation? More wars? Toxic air and water?

Joshua G · 01-07-2015, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

The left is for abortion, what do you mean they fail to address it? How does the righties address overpopulation? More wars? Toxic air and water?

i dont consider the right to have enough brainpower to worry about such things, hence i didnt mention them.

the rights solution to everything is more settler babies in the west bank.

Wizzo · 01-07-2015, 01:16 PM

The oil will come down here either way, the Pipeline is much cleaner and safer then by rail or tanker ship but lets not let logic get in the way of this... Continue... Also, the oil from Canada isn't the type they make gasoline out of but through that argument in as well since it's as stupid as the other. All you that think oil is evil, here's just a few things you should quit using today because it requires oil to make them:

Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Bicycle Tires
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmets
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
Ipods
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Insect Repellent
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste

This list could go on and on for 4pages.

Wizzo · 01-07-2015, 01:29 PM

And for those that think Obama or any other Democrat are against it for some bullshit environmental reasons. The truth is without the pipeline which would create mainly un-unionized oilfield jobs which pay well based on people doing the job they were hired to do, much of it would come down by rail which is highly unionized jobs in which people will pay their union dues, so that the unions can pay the democrats to stay in power and sell BS like the pipeline is bad to the American people. Both parties are out to fuck you, period.

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 01:46 PM

Only douchebag Regressive asswipes who are in bed with, or manipulated by, Big Oil (Koch Brothers), are onboard with this idiotic scheme.

If you have a fucking brain rattling around in your bulbous fucking head, you can clearly see how unnecessary and fucking idiotic this plan is.

Wizzo · 01-07-2015, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Only douchebag Regressive asswipes who are in bed with, or manipulated by, Big Oil (Koch Brothers), are onboard with this idiotic scheme.

If you have a fucking brain rattling around in your bulbous fucking head, you can clearly see how unnecessary and fucking idiotic this plan is.

Again the oil is coming down either way, but guessing you're a Union supporter.

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Again the oil is coming down either way, but guessing you're a Union supporter.

Without the pipeline the filthiest tar sands are not worth converting.

I am not an enabler.

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Only douchebag Regressive asswipes who are in bed with, or manipulated by, Big Oil (Koch Brothers), are onboard with this idiotic scheme.

If you have a fucking brain rattling around in your bulbous fucking head, you can clearly see how unnecessary and fucking idiotic this plan is.

Blah, blah, blah.

Thanks for coming in screaming, stomping your feet and throwing your toys around like a 3 year old.

.

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 02:06 PM

Canadians are good folks, they'll walk away from a $400 million/day resource on account of it's dirty and all. pee-yew!

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Blah, blah, blah.

Thanks for coming in screaming, stomping your feet and throwing your toys around like a 3 year old.

Hit a nerve, did I?

Funny how the Canadians refused to allow the pipeline to run through THEIR country, and out to the international market, eh?

BTW, here's some reading material for all of the corporate apologists and Koch brother deniers out there...

http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploa...rgo_Report.pdf

CurrentlySober · 01-07-2015, 02:25 PM

i like poopline...

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 02:28 PM

Oops, my mistake - looks like the corporate-owned Canadian government is getting ready to trash THEIR clean water and pristine lands now, too...

Energy East Pipeline: TransCanada's Keystone XL on Steroids » EcoWatch

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 02:40 PM

canadians are people too, a dashed line on a map doesn't change basic DNA. people are people.

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

canadians are people too, a dashed line on a map doesn't change basic DNA. people are people.

That's true, and you know what else is true? Corporations are NOT people.

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

That's true, and you know what else is true? Corporations are NOT people.

yes, they are.

2MuchMark · 01-07-2015, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

**********, it seems the basic assertion here is the USA/BO should step in and NOT approve this pipeline since Canada can't be bothered with being environmentally friendly on its own.

Not trying to make that sound over harsh, but it seems like that's the logic being applied.

No harshness heard, or read, or whatever. Canada is pretty clean for the most part, but the Alberta Tar sands is a huge fucking disgrace. And Haper, our Primeminister, is a real fucking douchebag, especially when it comes to the environment.

2MuchMark · 01-07-2015, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The funny thing is that it is more environmentally friendly to move the oil by pipeline than by rail. So there seems to be some sort of failure of logic if that is the reasoning against it.

Well, yes and no.

If you measure it in lives lost and property destruction, Forbes says "truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat ".

Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes

So in that case, pipeline doesn't seem so bad.

If you want to compare how much energy is required to pump all that oil from Alberta to Texas, that would be cool to know. I honestly don't know.

To me, a pipeline would seem to be the best way because it probably takes the least amount of energy, and SHOULD be the safest way way, and fastest way, vs train.

On the other hand, a train is made up of segmented parts that are individually checked for leaks, and a single segment can be removed, unloaded and repaired in the event of a leak. Should it all leak out, you lose maybe 5000 gallons of oil or whatever those things hold.

But if there's a leak in a pipeline, you dump 50,000 - 100,000 gallons or more because its (a) under lots of pressure, and (b) not always detected or found before the damage is done.

I'd feel better if pipelines had a better history.

Trend · 01-07-2015, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

True.

Trend, those are natural disasters that people can't do anything to stop. Then again, increased hurricane and typhoon strength is a part of global warming, which of course is due to man-made pollution.

So sad .. but not surprising that you missed the entire point.

slapass · 01-07-2015, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Greetings!

Question: Why do Americans want the Keystone XL Pipeline so badly?

Today it is going up for a vote, and Obama says he will veto it. Pollution, Carbon, very dirty oil, Greenhouse gasses, danger to aquifer, bad bad bad, blah blah blah, to which I agree of course.

But forgetting pollution and dangers for a moment, the XL Pipeline would ship Canadian oil to Texas, not the other way around. The US would depend in part, on Canada for its energy needs. Why then would the US want this? If you're drilling and making your own oil and trying for energy independence, and since the pipeline would be potentially very dangerous, why would you want it?

Pipelines are pretty safe as has been proven. We will move the oil by rail, not safe. So why we would we not want it?

BFT3K · 01-07-2015, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Pipelines are pretty safe as has been proven. We will move the oil by rail, not safe. So why we would we not want it?

First off, pipelines are NOT proven "safe" and secondly, the dirty oil is not worth the investment without easy, cheap, delivery of same.

In other words, a pipeline encourages this idiocy - it ENABLES IT.

No pipeline = No profit in polluting the world with this pond scum.

Wizzo · 01-07-2015, 03:30 PM

At current prices you are correct, if it goes back up to $100+ its well worth it, in fact even at $80 its worth it. I mean I know all my friends that work in oil service industries are really just asswipes falling for the Koch brothers bullshit and not trying to feed and support their families but still might know something about it.

So maybe the Saudi's flooding the market and tanking the price is who people should thank if they don't want it.

SuckOnThis · 01-07-2015, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Blah, blah, blah.

Thanks for coming in screaming, stomping your feet and throwing your toys around like a 3 year old.

.

Speaking of 3 year olds, when you were that age did you think 'when I grow up I'm going to be a foot soldier for the biggest polluters on the planet' or did that happen later in life?

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No harshness heard, or read, or whatever. Canada is pretty clean for the most part, but the Alberta Tar sands is a huge fucking disgrace. And Haper, our Primeminister, is a real fucking douchebag, especially when it comes to the environment.

Do you get badges from some sort of left-wing group for repeating their gibberish ad nauseum?

.

dyna mo · 01-07-2015, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Do you get badges from some sort of left-wing group for repeating their gibberish ad nauseum?

.

EonBlue · 01-07-2015, 06:08 PM

.

01-06-2015, 09:36 PM	#57
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	You should ask, "why does Congress want it so badly?" Pockets will get lined. Not talking about ordinary middle class Americans. The pockets of Republican politicians and some very rich people. __________________

01-07-2015, 11:54 AM	#70
thabootypro Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: El Paso, Tx Posts: 85	Its an unnecessary asset __________________

01-07-2015, 01:16 PM	#78
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,226	The oil will come down here either way, the Pipeline is much cleaner and safer then by rail or tanker ship but lets not let logic get in the way of this... Continue... Also, the oil from Canada isn't the type they make gasoline out of but through that argument in as well since it's as stupid as the other. All you that think oil is evil, here's just a few things you should quit using today because it requires oil to make them: Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests CD's & DVD's Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats Upholstery Sweaters Bicycle Tires Nail Polish Fishing lures Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmets Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape Ipods Faucet Washers Antiseptics Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant Percolators Life Jackets Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape Epoxy Paint Mops Insect Repellent Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste This list could go on and on for 4pages. __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

01-07-2015, 01:29 PM	#79
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,226	And for those that think Obama or any other Democrat are against it for some bullshit environmental reasons. The truth is without the pipeline which would create mainly un-unionized oilfield jobs which pay well based on people doing the job they were hired to do, much of it would come down by rail which is highly unionized jobs in which people will pay their union dues, so that the unions can pay the democrats to stay in power and sell BS like the pipeline is bad to the American people. Both parties are out to fuck you, period. __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

01-07-2015, 02:25 PM	#86
CurrentlySober Too lazy to wipe my ass Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: A Public Bathroom Posts: 38,497	i like poopline... __________________ My AI Handywork... My Dream Gal... XXX 👁️ 👍️ 💩

01-06-2015, 06:45 PM	#52
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,910	canada will sell tar sands oil, it doesn't matter what pipe it flows through. tar sand oil doesn't hinge on this here particular pipe.

01-07-2015, 09:51 AM	#65
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,910	**********, it seems the basic assertion here is the USA/BO should step in and NOT approve this pipeline since Canada can't be bothered with being environmentally friendly on its own. Not trying to make that sound over harsh, but it seems like that's the logic being applied.

01-07-2015, 10:36 AM	#68
seksi Phonetically Sexy Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 312	Here is the message as I see it: Transcanada (foreign pipeline behind Keystone XL) is unsafe The Canadian government admits Transcanada whistleblower Evan Vokes claims are valid. Enbridge is unsafe. Enbridge is the foreign pipeline operator trying to sneak a Keystone XL sized tar sands pipeline expansion through in MN. Both their rail tank cars and their pipelines have been shown to be unsafe and they have been fined for numerous accidents involving negligence leading to death and spills. Rail tank cars filled with tar sands products are unsafe, e.g. Lac-Mégantic killed 47 people. Rail is just as dangerous as pipelines! Light sweet crude is preferable if you need petroleum-based energy, it is cleaner to produce, and today it is on sale. Turns out there is less demand, and the speculators bubble has burst for one reason or another (petrodollar warfare with Russia?). Fact is Obama will veto Keystone XL and the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will be able to sustain the veto. Hopefully the Senate and the Obama administration will look into the scope creep on the Enbridge border crossing permits, too.

01-07-2015, 01:46 PM	#80
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Only douchebag Regressive asswipes who are in bed with, or manipulated by, Big Oil (Koch Brothers), are onboard with this idiotic scheme. If you have a fucking brain rattling around in your bulbous fucking head, you can clearly see how unnecessary and fucking idiotic this plan is.

01-07-2015, 02:06 PM	#84
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,910	Canadians are good folks, they'll walk away from a $400 million/day resource on account of it's dirty and all. pee-yew!

01-07-2015, 02:28 PM	#87
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Oops, my mistake - looks like the corporate-owned Canadian government is getting ready to trash THEIR clean water and pristine lands now, too... Energy East Pipeline: TransCanada's Keystone XL on Steroids » EcoWatch

01-07-2015, 02:40 PM	#88
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,910	canadians are people too, a dashed line on a map doesn't change basic DNA. people are people.

01-07-2015, 03:30 PM	#96
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,226	At current prices you are correct, if it goes back up to $100+ its well worth it, in fact even at $80 its worth it. I mean I know all my friends that work in oil service industries are really just asswipes falling for the Koch brothers bullshit and not trying to feed and support their families but still might know something about it. So maybe the Saudi's flooding the market and tanking the price is who people should thank if they don't want it. __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

01-07-2015, 06:08 PM	#100
EonBlue Apocalypse Industry Role: Join Date: May 2007 Location: Limbo Posts: 3,043	.