Why do Americans want the Keystone XL Pipeline so badly?

[2MuchMark]

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?

[Bladewire]

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?

Why you lumping all USA Americans as wanting the pipeline?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Why you lumping all USA Americans as wanting the pipeline?

Because that's what Princess does.

[Rand]

Americans don't want it. Only certain politicians and certain oil men do.

[dyna mo]

what makes you think Americans want it?

[Juicy D. Links]

the word "pipe" srt off my b o ardtrakcer

[Barry-xlovecam]

Because Obama will veto it #1
America needs the foreign oil
Canada is not exactly foreign to the USA

It is an expensive and risky plan B but is is a plan B in the event the Dakota oil fields are attacked. (New CIA false flag?)

I have no fkn idea why we really need it ...

[dyna mo]

Americans support the idea of constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline between Canada and the United States by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, with 65 percent saying it should be approved and 22 percent opposed, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings also show that the public thinks the massive project, which aims to ship 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta and the northern Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf Coast, will produce significant economic benefits. Eighty-five percent say the pipeline would create a significant number of jobs, with 62 percent saying they ?strongly? believed that to be the case.



New Post-ABC News poll: Keystone XL project overwhelmingly favored by Americans - The Washington Post

[12clicks]

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?

because canada is really nothing more than a 51st state when it comes to oil and commerce. If you have it, we have it. And the more oil that goes our way, the less goes china's way.
Pipelines have never been safer, gas engines never cleaner.

[Jman]

Originally Posted by Rand

Americans don't want it. Only certain politicians and certain oil men do.

BINGO

[Sly]

The Keystone even Canadians can get behind...

[bronco67]

Fact checking Keystone jobs claims - Nov. 18, 2014

[Rochard]

Why is this even an issue?

We have pipelines across the entire country. ALL of the gas sold in Arizona comes from California, and ALL of it is carried in a single pipeline (which everyone in Arizona learned when that pipeline broke down and EVERY gas station ran out of gas for two weeks!).

It will create hundreds if not thousands of short term jobs, at least dozens (if not hundreds) of long term jobs, and will have zero impact on the environment. If Canada wants to sell gas to China, so be it - they already have such pipelines, this one is just more direct, and someone in the US is going to get paid for it.

Why is this even an issue?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why is this even an issue?

We have pipelines across the entire country. ALL of the gas sold in Arizona comes from California, and ALL of it is carried in a single pipeline (which everyone in Arizona learned when that pipeline broke down and EVERY gas station ran out of gas for two weeks!).

It will create hundreds if not thousands of short term jobs, at least dozens (if not hundreds) of long term jobs, and will have zero impact on the environment. If Canada wants to sell gas to China, so be it - they already have such pipelines, this one is just more direct, and someone in the US is going to get paid for it.

Why is this even an issue?

BREAKING: White House says President Obama would veto Keystone pipeline legislation.
10:20 AM - 6 Jan 2015

[dyna mo]

At issue on Keystone is not American oil, it is Canadian oil that is drawn out of tar sands in Canada. That oil currently is being shipped through rail or trucks, and it would save Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the United State down to the Gulf. Once that oil gets to the Gulf, it is then entering into the world market and it would be sold all around the world. … There is very little impact, nominal impact, on U.S. gas prices, what the average American consumer cares about, by having this pipeline come through.

And sometimes the way this gets sold is, let’s get this oil and it’s going to come here and the implication is that’s gonna lower oil prices here in the U.S. It’s not. There’s a global oil market. It’s very good for Canadian oil companies and it’s good for the Canadian oil industry, but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers. It’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.

-BO

Obama sounds like he's about to reject the Keystone pipeline | Grist

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

BREAKING: White House says President Obama would veto Keystone pipeline legislation.
10:20 AM - 6 Jan 2015

And?

I am not a Democrat nor do I believe Obama is our savior. I call it as I see it, not how someone else tells me how they believe I should see it.

[czarina]

I agree: NO to the pipeline!

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And?

I am not a Democrat nor do I believe Obama is our savior. I call it as I see it, not how someone else tells me how they believe I should see it.

You asked why this is an issue, the pusa thinks it's an issue and has given his reasons why. I thought you might want the official answer to your question.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

At issue on Keystone is not American oil, it is Canadian oil that is drawn out of tar sands in Canada. That oil currently is being shipped through rail or trucks, and it would save Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the United State down to the Gulf. Once that oil gets to the Gulf, it is then entering into the world market and it would be sold all around the world. ? There is very little impact, nominal impact, on U.S. gas prices, what the average American consumer cares about, by having this pipeline come through.

And sometimes the way this gets sold is, let?s get this oil and it?s going to come here and the implication is that?s gonna lower oil prices here in the U.S. It?s not. There?s a global oil market. It?s very good for Canadian oil companies and it?s good for the Canadian oil industry, but it?s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers. It?s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.

-BO

Obama sounds like he's about to reject the Keystone pipeline | Grist

This is an example of politics gone wrong. This shouldn't even be on the radar of Washington DC. This is strictly a business matter; Did Congress vote on the pipeline supplying oil from California to Phoenix? I'm guessing not. There are pipelines carrying gas and oil and everything else going from state to state. Is there any environmental of any of the current pipelines? Again, I am guessing no because I don't believe we have ever had an environmental disaster because of an oil spill. There seems to be some concerns about earthquakes which is laughable; The pipeline from California to Arizona starts in California, the earthquake capital of the United States.

Our country is nothing but pipelines. Hell, I have a pipe directly into my house supplying me with natural gas.

By the way, I believe the Keystone Pipeline picks up US oil in Montana and brings it to the coast.

One way or the other, Canadian oil is going to pass through the United States. Canadian oil is already passing through the US, mostly in pipelines.

[Barry-xlovecam]

And with the depressed oil prices ... tar sand oils:

There are two primary methods to move oil: by pipeline, which is cheap, and by rail, which is expensive. That cost differential is make-or-break for a tar sands business. The break-even price of tar sands oil is around $100 per barrel if transported by rail, according to Anthony Swift, a staff attorney at NRDC (which publishes OnEarth). Tar sands oil sells for $75 on a good day. So producers have to find a savings of $25 per barrel somewhere in order to make it worth the investment.

The Tar Sands Bubble

$47.85 -2.19 (-4.38%)
2015-01-06 16:14:31, 30 MIN DELAY

It's real iffy ... there could be a comeback to $80 or a long term bottom near $30

Store it in tank farms up there?
The big employment gain is like building a road to nowhere right now.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is an example of politics gone wrong. This shouldn't even be on the radar of Washington DC. This is strictly a business matter; Did Congress vote on the pipeline supplying oil from California to Phoenix? I'm guessing not. There are pipelines carrying gas and oil and everything else going from state to state. Is there any environmental of any of the current pipelines? Again, I am guessing no because I don't believe we have ever had an environmental disaster because of an oil spill. There seems to be some concerns about earthquakes which is laughable; The pipeline from California to Arizona starts in California, the earthquake capital of the United States.

Our country is nothing but pipelines. Hell, I have a pipe directly into my house supplying me with natural gas.

By the way, I believe the Keystone Pipeline picks up US oil in Montana and brings it to the coast.

One way or the other, Canadian oil is going to pass through the United States. Canadian oil is already passing through the US, mostly in pipelines.

It makes you wonder why BO hates canadians.

[ITraffic]

bo picked an easy time to veto as the oil sands where the majority of this oil will come from is being collapsed by saudis and thousands of workers are being laid off up there with no end in sight.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Rochard

and will have zero impact on the environment.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Is there any environmental of any of the current pipelines? Again, I am guessing no because I don't believe we have ever had an environmental disaster because of an oil spill.

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]

April 2, 2013

Nearly 12,000 barrels of crude oil spilled out of Exxon Mobil’s Pegasus pipeline into a Mayflower, Arkansas neighborhood causing the evacuation of 22 homes last Friday. The pipeline originates in Patoka, Illinois, and carries crude oil to the Texas Gulf Coast from Western Canada.


April 5, 2013
Thousands of gallons of oil have spilled from a pipeline in Texas, the third accident of its kind in only a week.

Shell Pipeline, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, shut down their West Columbia, Texas, pipeline last Friday after electronic calculations conducted by the US National Response Center showed that upwards of 700 barrels had been lost, amounting to almost 30,000 gallons of crude oil.


April 26, 2013
The company that owns a pipeline that leaked 28,000 barrels of crude oil near a First Nations community in northwest Alberta — the largest spill in the province in 35 years — is now facing environmental charges.

Plains Midstream Canada ULC is facing three counts under the province's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

The April 2011 spill of almost 4.5 million litres of oil contaminated more than three hectares of beaver ponds and muskeg in a densely forested area.



June 12, 2010

A leaked pipeline sent oil spilling into a Salt Lake City creek, coating geese and ducks and closing a park, officials said Saturday as they started a cleanup effort expected to last weeks.
At least 400 to 500 barrels of oil spewed into Red Butte Creek before crews capped the leak site. Nearly 50 gallons of crude oil per minute initially had spilled into the creek, according to Scott Freitag, a Salt Lake City Fire Department spokesman.


June 7, 2011
Enbridge says it was not covering up the true size of a pipeline leak in the Northwest Territories, which leaked up to 1,500 barrels into the northern environment.

Enbridge had originally reported that only four barrels of oil leaked from its Norman Wells pipeline on May 9. But the company revised its estimate on Monday, saying 700 to 1,500 barrels had spilled.




Yep, pipelines have never caused any negative environmental impact

.

[Joshua G]

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

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?

anything that reduces US purchases of middle east oil is good. as canada is a solid ally, its a win-win.

anything that takes oil off trains is good. recent a runaway oil train crashed in canada, blew up an entire town & killed 50 people. when did a pipeline kill 50 people?

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Why you lumping all USA Americans as wanting the pipeline?

Originally Posted by dyna mo

what makes you think Americans want it?

Good point. "Why do SOME Americans want the XL Pipeline so badly?"

Originally Posted by baddog

Because that's what Princess does.

Really? Is that the best you can do?

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Pipelines have never been safer

I don't know about that... Look at all the pipeline oil leaks between 2010 and 2014 here

pretty scary.

Originally Posted by bronco67

Fact checking Keystone jobs claims - Nov. 18, 2014

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why is this even an issue?

We have pipelines across the entire country. ALL of the gas sold in Arizona comes from California, and ALL of it is carried in a single pipeline (which everyone in Arizona learned when that pipeline broke down and EVERY gas station ran out of gas for two weeks!).

It will create hundreds if not thousands of short term jobs, at least dozens (if not hundreds) of long term jobs, and will have zero impact on the environment. If Canada wants to sell gas to China, so be it - they already have such pipelines, this one is just more direct, and someone in the US is going to get paid for it.

Why is this even an issue?

There are lots of issues. Doesn't it seem like its very risky? Maybe construction of the pipeline will have little impact on the environment, but if it leaks, it can have major impact. A lot of the pipeline will be on or near the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies clean water to millions of people in the US. If there's a like and it gets contaminated, then what?

Originally Posted by dyna mo

BREAKING: White House says President Obama would veto Keystone pipeline legislation.
10:20 AM - 6 Jan 2015

Awesome. Obama just earned another Marky-point.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is an example of politics gone wrong. This shouldn't even be on the radar of Washington DC. This is strictly a business matter; Did Congress vote on the pipeline supplying oil from California to Phoenix? I'm guessing not. There are pipelines carrying gas and oil and everything else going from state to state. Is there any environmental of any of the current pipelines?

I'm guess it's a political issue because it impacts the environment (through spills, construction and usage), it crosses not only states, but countries, some of the build is on federal land, some on private land, (some in parks?), etc. There are lots of reasons for the governments to be involved.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Again, I am guessing no because I don't believe we have ever had an environmental disaster because of an oil spill.

There have been plenty of pipeline oil disasters, as well as drilling disasters and even oil transport disasters.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

And with the depressed oil prices ... .

This too.

If you were a big shareholder in oil, maybe this would have made sense last spring. But now with the prices so low, isn't it a risky venture, financially and environmentally to get into at this point?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

anything that reduces US purchases of middle east oil is good. as canada is a solid ally, its a win-win.

anything that takes oil off trains is good. recent a runaway oil train crashed in canada, blew up an entire town & killed 50 people. when did a pipeline kill 50 people?

The oil isnt for the US, its to go overseas.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

It makes you wonder why BO hates canadians.

He has never met me. If he met me, he would love me. We'd drink Canadian beer and bang some Canadian strippers.

[sandman!]

Originally Posted by Rand

Americans don't want it. Only certain politicians and certain oil men do.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

anything that reduces US purchases of middle east oil is good. as canada is a solid ally, its a win-win.

Kinda / sorta good point, but still... the US is oil-rich, and exports more than it imports already. You would think that the last thing the US would want to do is make it easier to import foreign oil. This means less jobs for you, and bazillions of dollars leaving your country. Wouldn't you want to keep the money, drill your own, and hire your own?

This is my point - it seems fishy...

Originally Posted by Joshua G

anything that takes oil off trains is good. recent a runaway oil train crashed in canada, blew up an entire town & killed 50 people. when did a pipeline kill 50 people?

This one killed 8:
2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion killed 8
2014 Kaoshiung Explosion killed 30 people and injured 300
2006 Lagos Explosion : 500 people killed
2000 Ebute , killed 60 people
2000 Warri, killed 100
1998 Jesse (near Niger Delta in Nigaria), killed 1200
2010 Bronte Creek in Ontario spilled 23,770 Gallons. No deaths, but still..

[Joshua G]

nevermind.

[EonBlue]

Ya, no need to build a pipeline because there already is one. It looks like this:



This style of pipeline is prone to crashing, leaking, exploding and wiping out small towns. It is also expensive, dirty and sends greentards into a fit by generating tons of CO2 (the horror).

The US is already criss-crossed by millions of miles of pipeline but adding a few thousand more is all of the sudden the greatest threat facing mankind - ever!

So the US doesn't want Canadian oil because it's dirty and blah, blah, blah (insert standard activist talking points here). Fine. We can sell it elsewhere and deliver it by oil tanker - which is obviously far cleaner and safer than pipeline. The US can continue to buy their oil from Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and all of those other awesome countries that they seem to prefer.

There is no real valid reason to not build this pipeline. It's just another one of those activist and media driven frenzies that all of the misinformed masses and politicians latch onto because everybody else is. Obama is an idiot and is only opposing this because the green lobby is telling him to. If he had any leadership ability it would already be built.




.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Ya, no need to build a pipeline because there already is one. It looks like this:



This style of pipeline is prone to crashing, leaking, exploding and wiping out small towns. It is also expensive, dirty and sends greentards into a fit by generating tons of CO2 (the horror).

The US is already criss-crossed by millions of miles of pipeline but adding a few thousand more is all of the sudden the greatest threat facing mankind - ever!

So the US doesn't want Canadian oil because it's dirty and blah, blah, blah (insert standard activist talking points here). Fine. We can sell it elsewhere and deliver it by oil tanker - which is obviously far cleaner and safer than pipeline. The US can continue to buy their oil from Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and all of those other awesome countries that they seem to prefer.

There is no real valid reason to not build this pipeline. It's just another one of those activist and media driven frenzies that all of the misinformed masses and politicians latch onto because everybody else is. Obama is an idiot and is only opposing this because the green lobby is telling him to. If he had any leadership ability it would already be built.




.

Again its not for the US, its to be sold overseas. This is why so many support it because they think its oil for the US and it isnt.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

There is no real valid reason to not build this pipeline. It's just another one of those activist and media driven frenzies that all of the misinformed masses and politicians latch onto because everybody else is.

Just because activists have concerns / don't want it etc, why is that automatically a bad thing? Are the activists completely wrong with their concerns?

I'm pro-green, but I understand the need, value, place and reasons for oil - we'll never get rid of it and too many things depend on it - I get that. My point is that this venture seems like a big risk to Americans, with very little gain for them. They (politicians, mostly republicans I think, some democrats), are going crazy trying to get this approved, but... for what? Not for jobs, not for economic benefit that I can see... what is missing here?

[Joshua G]

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

This one killed 8:
2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion killed 8
2014 Kaoshiung Explosion killed 30 people and injured 300
2006 Lagos Explosion : 500 people killed
2000 Ebute , killed 60 people
2000 Warri, killed 100
1998 Jesse (near Niger Delta in Nigaria), killed 1200
2010 Bronte Creek in Ontario spilled 23,770 Gallons. No deaths, but still..

come on man all the big deaths happened where the lightbulb hasnt been invented yet. please!

i can understand if people think the environment is sacrosanct, then oppose it. otherwise, it provides economic & safety benefits vs oil trains & helps the US be less dependent on the bad guys.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by tony286

The oil isnt for the US, its to go overseas.

what part of the project forbids americans from buying oil that passes through the american oil refineries that are the destination of the oil?

[seksi]

A Canadian pipeline company called Enbridge is sneaking a Keystone XL sized pipeline capacity upgrade through existing, leaking pipelines that traverse the headwaters of the Mississippi headwaters in Northern Minnesota. It's called the Alberta Clipper line 67.

There are proposed new pipelines that will join the route with tarsands oil from the Bakken oil shale boom gone bust in North Dakota.

We have totally insane semi-legal proceedings on the permits going on all across the state this week. There is a local MN paper running a series, coincidentally, on the sex trafficking likely following the oil field workers and pipefitters. Good times.

I am okay with Obama's decision and the fact the Senate has enough votes to sustain the veto. The do need to rein in Enbridge at the same time, though.

Enbridge pipelines might supply more oil to Chicago and the Eastern Seaboard than KXL, which would feed export oriented refineries and crude export terminal in Louisiana.

Enbridge exists because it's predecessor that created the older line that run along Line 67 was never able to clean up a 1979 pipeline spill site in MN that still has crude in it today...

You spill oil and don't want to pay? Sell yourself to a new company and avoid all responsibility... someone - usually the same people, will use the very same infrastructure and keep pumping oil through it. Only the names are changed.

[TCLGirls]

Interestingly, those Canadians could build a pipeline to there own Eastern or Western coastlines. I know there's a Chevron oil refinery in Burnaby BC and one in Montreal...plus many others. You have to wonder why they don't just build pipelines to those refineries.

[ITraffic]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Interestingly, those Canadians could build a pipeline to there own Eastern or Western coastlines. I know there's a Chevron oil refinery in Burnaby BC and one in Montreal...plus many others. You have to wonder why they don't just build pipelines to those refineries.

they are. to try and dodge opposition they are twinning it with a natural gas pipeline that goes from the west to quebec.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

what part of the project forbids americans from buying oil that passes through the american oil refineries that are the destination of the oil?

Nothing forbids that. However, since that oil is available on the open market, all buyers will have to pay "retail"...thus no discount for Americans even though we shoulder the burden of the pipeline.

[seksi]

They can't and won't clean up pipeline spills, but they can try to spin it: Enbridge Pipeline advocacy calls 1979 spill they couldn't clean up a gift to my home town

Gratuitous butt picture of my butt:

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by tony286

Again its not for the US, its to be sold overseas. This is why so many support it because they think its oil for the US and it isnt.

So the US refineries and the people who work at them do not make money from processing it before it heads over seas - even if that is the case? Is this not a global economy? If the US wants to shaft us on this just because they think they get no benefit from it then I am sure we can finds ways to return the favor.

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

Just because activists have concerns / don't want it etc, why is that automatically a bad thing? Are the activists completely wrong with their concerns?

I'm pro-green, but I understand the need, value, place and reasons for oil - we'll never get rid of it and too many things depend on it - I get that. My point is that this venture seems like a big risk to Americans, with very little gain for them. They (politicians, mostly republicans I think, some democrats), are going crazy trying to get this approved, but... for what? Not for jobs, not for economic benefit that I can see... what is missing here?

Yes, the activists are completely wrong with their concerns in regards to their opposition to this pipeline because the oil is now being transported by rail. Even a "pro-green" disciple such as yourself should be able to admit that it is far safer, and even far "greener", to transport oil via pipeline than it is to move it by rail. People who oppose the pipeline are actually causing more damage to the environment by forcing the oil onto trains. Pro-green my ass.



.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Yep, pipelines have never caused any negative environmental impact
.

Odd, I've never heard of a "pipeline" spilling out oil. I guess it's not front page news when it happens.

Okay, you proved your point, it has an environmental impact. Yet we have pipelines all across the country. Is one more going more going to make a difference?

[seksi]

Originally Posted by seksi

Gratuitous butt picture of my butt:

How did I not manage to work in the word butt into that sentence one more time?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

anything that reduces US purchases of middle east oil is good. as canada is a solid ally, its a win-win.

anything that takes oil off trains is good. recent a runaway oil train crashed in canada, blew up an entire town & killed 50 people. when did a pipeline kill 50 people?

Okay.... So pipelines are safer than trains.

I didn't think of that. We had a train fire here a few years ago; They had to evacuate our entire city of forty-thousand people.

So pipelines are bad because they have an environmental impact, but safer than trains.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Ya, no need to build a pipeline because there already is one. It looks like this:



This style of pipeline is prone to crashing, leaking, exploding and wiping out small towns. It is also expensive, dirty and sends greentards into a fit by generating tons of CO2 (the horror).

The US is already criss-crossed by millions of miles of pipeline but adding a few thousand more is all of the sudden the greatest threat facing mankind - ever!

So the US doesn't want Canadian oil because it's dirty and blah, blah, blah (insert standard activist talking points here). Fine. We can sell it elsewhere and deliver it by oil tanker - which is obviously far cleaner and safer than pipeline. The US can continue to buy their oil from Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and all of those other awesome countries that they seem to prefer.

There is no real valid reason to not build this pipeline. It's just another one of those activist and media driven frenzies that all of the misinformed masses and politicians latch onto because everybody else is. Obama is an idiot and is only opposing this because the green lobby is telling him to. If he had any leadership ability it would already be built.




.

This is kind of my point. We already have pipelines. If not, we have trains.

One way or another, Canadian oil is going to pass through the US.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is kind of my point. We already have pipelines. If not, we have trains.

One way or another, Canadian oil is going to pass through the US.

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.


.

[ITraffic]

not really true. since keystone has become a clusterfuck the plan now is to send it east across canada.

[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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ai08xm7T20

The Alberta Clipper line 67 exploded once in November 2007 near Clearbrook, MN killing two pipeline workers. PHMSA later fined Enbridge $2.4 million for safety violations connected to the incident.

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 Keystone related carbon emissions.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by ITraffic

not really true. since keystone has become a clusterfuck the plan now is to send it east across canada.

Good. Let the US buy their oil from their "allies".



.