Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it's not so much the Asphalt being passed off as oil, but the solvents the Asphalt use to dilute the Asphalt and MAKE it oil ... those solvents can't be cleaned up and the Asphalt WILL NOT flow through a pipeline without the solvents.
That wasn't my question.
How deep is the aquifer?
those solvents can't be cleaned up
Which solvents are they using and why do you feel they can't be cleaned up?
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Not to mention so volatile, it would evaporate long before seeping hundreds of feet down into an aquifer.
Liberals are usually pretty weak on the science.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round, with a close to linear average gradient to ground level. Heavy naptha evaporate wouldn't evaporate at all, and light naptha might lose some of it's higher constituents, but not many. How about dazzling me with all that scientific knowledge and explain why you don't think it would make it to the water.
it's not so much the Asphalt being passed off as oil, but the solvents the Asphalt use to dilute the Asphalt and MAKE it oil ... those solvents can't be cleaned up and the Asphalt WILL NOT flow through a pipeline without the solvents.
That wasn't my question.
How deep is the aquifer?
those solvents can't be cleaned up
Which solvents are they using and why do you feel they can't be cleaned up?
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Lots of things are insoluble in water, but that doesn't make them safe. The bitumen it's self is not soluble in water either, but I don't want to drink it.
Health and safety considerations
Forms of naphtha may be carcinogenic, and frequently products sold as naphtha contain some impurities which may also have harmful properties of their own.[7][8] Like many hydrocarbon products, they are products of a refining process in which a complex soup of chemicals is broken into another range of chemicals, which are then graded and isolated mainly by their specific gravity and volatility. There is, therefore, a range of distinct chemicals included in each product. This makes rigorous comparisons and identification of specific carcinogens difficult, especially in our modern environment where people are daily exposed to many such products, and is further complicated by exposure to a significant range of other known and potential carcinogens.[9]
"Light naphtha [is] a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from five to nine carbon atoms per molecule. Heavy naphtha, a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from seven to nine carbons per molecule."[10] "Almost all volatile, lipid-soluble organic chemicals cause general, nonspecific depression of the central nervous system or general anesthesia."[11] The OSHA PEL TWA = 100 parts-per-million (ppm); Health Hazards/Target Organs = eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidney. Symptoms of acute exposure are dizziness and narcosis with loss of consciousness. The World Health Organization categorizes health effects into three groups: reversible symptoms (Type 1), mild chronic encephalopathy (Type 2) and severe chronic toxic encephalopathy (Type 3).
Topical exposure to naphtha can cause a burning sensation on the skin within a period of minutes to an hour, followed by contact dermatitis—a rash—that can last for days to weeks.
Lots of things are insoluble in water, but that doesn't make them safe.
True, but it does make it harder for them to contaminate an aquifer, idiot!
That wasn't my question.
How deep is the aquifer?
those solvents can't be cleaned up
Which solvents are they using and why do you feel they can't be cleaned up?
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Lots of things are insoluble in water, but that doesn't make them safe. The bitumen it's self is not soluble in water either, but I don't want to drink it.
Health and safety considerations
Forms of naphtha may be carcinogenic, and frequently products sold as naphtha contain some impurities which may also have harmful properties of their own.[7][8] Like many hydrocarbon products, they are products of a refining process in which a complex soup of chemicals is broken into another range of chemicals, which are then graded and isolated mainly by their specific gravity and volatility. There is, therefore, a range of distinct chemicals included in each product. This makes rigorous comparisons and identification of specific carcinogens difficult, especially in our modern environment where people are daily exposed to many such products, and is further complicated by exposure to a significant range of other known and potential carcinogens.[9]
"Light naphtha [is] a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from five to nine carbon atoms per molecule. Heavy naphtha, a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from seven to nine carbons per molecule."[10] "Almost all volatile, lipid-soluble organic chemicals cause general, nonspecific depression of the central nervous system or general anesthesia."[11] The OSHA PEL TWA = 100 parts-per-million (ppm); Health Hazards/Target Organs = eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidney. Symptoms of acute exposure are dizziness and narcosis with loss of consciousness. The World Health Organization categorizes health effects into three groups: reversible symptoms (Type 1), mild chronic encephalopathy (Type 2) and severe chronic toxic encephalopathy (Type 3).
Topical exposure to naphtha can cause a burning sensation on the skin within a period of minutes to an hour, followed by contact dermatitis—a rash—that can last for days to weeks.
I think that even a silly person like you would know enough not to drink anything that makes your eyes water and causes your nose to run and smells bad. Forgive me if I'm wrong and you actually DO enjoy living your life to the fullest, but intelligent people are ....well intelligent enough to know that you shouldn't imbibe it.
You're the one who said it was insoluble in water as if that made any difference.
I have two relatives who work in the Bakken Oil fields... One of them was there when the oil car on a train went off the tracks and burned a town to the ground. Or did you forget that?I want cheap energy that boost economies and create jobs.I want clean air, clean water and unpolluted soil. Tell me how oil sands are clean, coal is clean and solar and renewable sources are bad.
Your clean air, clean water, and unpolluted soil is in greater jeopardy from moving oil by rail car than by pipeline. Another 2k miles of pipeline compared to the 10's of thousands miles of existing pipeline is no environmental threat at all.
Yet, again. You lose.
I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
North Dakota town evacuates after train derails explodes and burns - The Denver Post
Canadian Oil Train Derails Destroys Center of Town
oil train derails burns town - Bing Videos
These are not imagined environmental problems. These are actual environmental disasters.
Your statement, in no way, gives good cause why the pipeline cannot be built.
Yuppers it was Bakken crude that burnt 47 people alive in Lac Megantic.
If people really took the time to consider where their rail lines that are carrying oil go thru urban centers they'd freak.
"It was Bakken oil that exploded in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer, incinerating much of the downtown and killing 47 people.
Again, Keystone’s opponents can’t place the blame on inferior standards or an uncaring foreign government, as the disaster involved a U.S. rail line carrying Bakken oil.
And similar accidents have taken place in the U.S. — in addition to the Casselton accident in December, a 90-car Genesee and Wyoming train carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude oil derailed and caught fire in rural Alabama in November, sending flames 300 feet into the air."
Kelly McParland The surge in rail accidents shifts Keystone debate from Canadian oil to U.S. safety National Post
As far as train wrecks in Canada, I certainly feel for them, but that's their problem to deal with. I'm not aware of any widespread opposition to a pipeline to transport bakkin oil. Bitumen is a problem. Oil from the bakken field , not so much. Why don't they lay one?
And the point is ,what?VIENNA — Oil prices fell sharply Thursday after the powerful oil collective OPEC said it would't intervene in global markets and cut production levels to stem oil prices that have fallen 30% since June.
Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali Al-Naimi delivered the news as he left a meeting of the cartel in Vienna.
Crude oil prices plummeted 2.7% to $72.61 a barrel following the annoucement. In June, prices were as high as $115 a barrel.
That wasn't my question.
How deep is the aquifer?
those solvents can't be cleaned up
Which solvents are they using and why do you feel they can't be cleaned up?
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Not to mention so volatile, it would evaporate long before seeping hundreds of feet down into an aquifer.
Liberals are usually pretty weak on the science.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round, with a close to linear average gradient to ground level. Heavy naptha evaporate wouldn't evaporate at all, and light naptha might lose some of it's higher constituents, but not many. How about dazzling me with all that scientific knowledge and explain why you don't think it would make it to the water.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round,
If it doesn't dissolve in water and evaporates before it sinks hundreds of feet thru soil before it reachs the water, what is your point exactly?
And YOU don't seem to comprehend that 1 million barrels is more then 700 barrels do you?I want cheap energy that boost economies and create jobs.I want a safe, secure source of oil.
Canada is better than the Middle East.
Tell me how stopping Keystone helps.
I want clean air, clean water and unpolluted soil. Tell me how oil sands are clean, coal is clean and solar and renewable sources are bad.
Your clean air, clean water, and unpolluted soil is in greater jeopardy from moving oil by rail car than by pipeline. Another 2k miles of pipeline compared to the 10's of thousands miles of existing pipeline is no environmental threat at all.
Yet, again. You lose.
I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
Once again! Which is a larger number 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean that has a greater risk and larger potential for destruction OR 700 barrels traveling in one mile of pipeline on DRY LAND?
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Everything being equal China will by the oil. How it gets to China is the issue.
You want one million barrels a day travel on Pacific Northwest ports are being increasingly used to ship oil and coal to Asia.
Unfortunately,Northwest inland and coastal waters are some of the most dangerous in the world, with strong winds, powerful currents, rocky shores and river bars.
Unstable, steep slopes threaten train traffic heading to coal/oil ports, and a huge fishery and shellfish industry is at risk if a spill occurs.
The Pacific coastal water from south of the Columbia River outfall to the tip of Vancouver Island to the north (see map below), is commonly known as the Graveyard of the Pacific, and for good reason. You start with abruptly rising rocky coasts, add strong winds, and mix in low visibility from incessant fog and rain.
Strong winds, sometimes reaching hurricane strength, batter the Washington and Oregon coasts in winter and the foggiest location in the continental U.S. is Cape Disappointment on the northern terminus of the Columbia River (with 106 days a year of dense fog!). The interaction of the westward moving flow of the Columbia River and incoming waves produces the dangerous Columbia Bar (see picture), with large waves and threatening shoals. Strong easterly winds exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca, frequently reaching 60-80 mph.
Cliff Mass Weather Blog Are Pacific Northwest Waters Too Risky for Oil And Coal Ships
It just doesn't make sense to ship 1 million barrels in that waterway.
Pipe to Houston. Travel by ship in the calmer Gulf of Mexico and then through the Panama Canal to China.
That will be the LEAST risk of greater damage to the USA... not shipping it through waters 1/3 of the year has dense fog!
So you are afraid fog might make a ship more likely to spill? You're grabbing at straws now. You know a little bad weather won't effect a ship.
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Lots of things are insoluble in water, but that doesn't make them safe. The bitumen it's self is not soluble in water either, but I don't want to drink it.
Health and safety considerations
Forms of naphtha may be carcinogenic, and frequently products sold as naphtha contain some impurities which may also have harmful properties of their own.[7][8] Like many hydrocarbon products, they are products of a refining process in which a complex soup of chemicals is broken into another range of chemicals, which are then graded and isolated mainly by their specific gravity and volatility. There is, therefore, a range of distinct chemicals included in each product. This makes rigorous comparisons and identification of specific carcinogens difficult, especially in our modern environment where people are daily exposed to many such products, and is further complicated by exposure to a significant range of other known and potential carcinogens.[9]
"Light naphtha [is] a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from five to nine carbon atoms per molecule. Heavy naphtha, a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from seven to nine carbons per molecule."[10] "Almost all volatile, lipid-soluble organic chemicals cause general, nonspecific depression of the central nervous system or general anesthesia."[11] The OSHA PEL TWA = 100 parts-per-million (ppm); Health Hazards/Target Organs = eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidney. Symptoms of acute exposure are dizziness and narcosis with loss of consciousness. The World Health Organization categorizes health effects into three groups: reversible symptoms (Type 1), mild chronic encephalopathy (Type 2) and severe chronic toxic encephalopathy (Type 3).
Topical exposure to naphtha can cause a burning sensation on the skin within a period of minutes to an hour, followed by contact dermatitis—a rash—that can last for days to weeks.
I think that even a silly person like you would know enough not to drink anything that makes your eyes water and causes your nose to run and smells bad. Forgive me if I'm wrong and you actually DO enjoy living your life to the fullest, but intelligent people are ....well intelligent enough to know that you shouldn't imbibe it.
You're the one who said it was insoluble in water as if that made any difference.
It makes all the difference in the world if your concern is contaminating an aquifer. Insoluable means??????.... Yes, that's right...IT CAN'T HAPPEN! Thanks for playing now get thee to a school to learn something.
I have two relatives who work in the Bakken Oil fields... One of them was there when the oil car on a train went off the tracks and burned a town to the ground. Or did you forget that?I want cheap energy that boost economies and create jobs.
Your clean air, clean water, and unpolluted soil is in greater jeopardy from moving oil by rail car than by pipeline. Another 2k miles of pipeline compared to the 10's of thousands miles of existing pipeline is no environmental threat at all.
Yet, again. You lose.
I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
North Dakota town evacuates after train derails explodes and burns - The Denver Post
Canadian Oil Train Derails Destroys Center of Town
oil train derails burns town - Bing Videos
These are not imagined environmental problems. These are actual environmental disasters.
Your statement, in no way, gives good cause why the pipeline cannot be built.
Yuppers it was Bakken crude that burnt 47 people alive in Lac Megantic.
If people really took the time to consider where their rail lines that are carrying oil go thru urban centers they'd freak.
"It was Bakken oil that exploded in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer, incinerating much of the downtown and killing 47 people.
Again, Keystone’s opponents can’t place the blame on inferior standards or an uncaring foreign government, as the disaster involved a U.S. rail line carrying Bakken oil.
And similar accidents have taken place in the U.S. — in addition to the Casselton accident in December, a 90-car Genesee and Wyoming train carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude oil derailed and caught fire in rural Alabama in November, sending flames 300 feet into the air."
Kelly McParland The surge in rail accidents shifts Keystone debate from Canadian oil to U.S. safety National Post
As far as train wrecks in Canada, I certainly feel for them, but that's their problem to deal with. I'm not aware of any widespread opposition to a pipeline to transport bakkin oil. Bitumen is a problem. Oil from the bakken field , not so much. Why don't they lay one?
You don't pump enough. Don't you get it?
That's why you have been importing from Canada for years on end. Became your #1 supplier in 2004. You are going to get the crude from Alberta whether you personally like it or not.
Your refineries are tooled to handle it. Your refineries want it. Your refineries are buying it.
And it doesn't matter if you build Keystone's final leg or not. There's already Keystone I and II and the southern leg of XL.
The rest is coming mainly by rail. All the contracts are in place and the crude is rolling.
And YOU don't seem to comprehend that 1 million barrels is more then 700 barrels do you?I want cheap energy that boost economies and create jobs.I want clean air, clean water and unpolluted soil. Tell me how oil sands are clean, coal is clean and solar and renewable sources are bad.
Your clean air, clean water, and unpolluted soil is in greater jeopardy from moving oil by rail car than by pipeline. Another 2k miles of pipeline compared to the 10's of thousands miles of existing pipeline is no environmental threat at all.
Yet, again. You lose.
I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
Once again! Which is a larger number 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean that has a greater risk and larger potential for destruction OR 700 barrels traveling in one mile of pipeline on DRY LAND?
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Everything being equal China will by the oil. How it gets to China is the issue.
You want one million barrels a day travel on Pacific Northwest ports are being increasingly used to ship oil and coal to Asia.
Unfortunately,Northwest inland and coastal waters are some of the most dangerous in the world, with strong winds, powerful currents, rocky shores and river bars.
Unstable, steep slopes threaten train traffic heading to coal/oil ports, and a huge fishery and shellfish industry is at risk if a spill occurs.
The Pacific coastal water from south of the Columbia River outfall to the tip of Vancouver Island to the north (see map below), is commonly known as the Graveyard of the Pacific, and for good reason. You start with abruptly rising rocky coasts, add strong winds, and mix in low visibility from incessant fog and rain.
Strong winds, sometimes reaching hurricane strength, batter the Washington and Oregon coasts in winter and the foggiest location in the continental U.S. is Cape Disappointment on the northern terminus of the Columbia River (with 106 days a year of dense fog!). The interaction of the westward moving flow of the Columbia River and incoming waves produces the dangerous Columbia Bar (see picture), with large waves and threatening shoals. Strong easterly winds exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca, frequently reaching 60-80 mph.
Cliff Mass Weather Blog Are Pacific Northwest Waters Too Risky for Oil And Coal Ships
It just doesn't make sense to ship 1 million barrels in that waterway.
Pipe to Houston. Travel by ship in the calmer Gulf of Mexico and then through the Panama Canal to China.
That will be the LEAST risk of greater damage to the USA... not shipping it through waters 1/3 of the year has dense fog!
So you are afraid fog might make a ship more likely to spill? You're grabbing at straws now. You know a little bad weather won't effect a ship.
What is the problem with admitting that 1 million barrels in a tanker on the open ocean is a greater RISK AND more importantly
can damage more then 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
Why is that concept so hard?
What an intelligent comment that speaks lowly of your grasp of a simple number!And YOU don't seem to comprehend that 1 million barrels is more then 700 barrels do you?I want cheap energy that boost economies and create jobs.
Your clean air, clean water, and unpolluted soil is in greater jeopardy from moving oil by rail car than by pipeline. Another 2k miles of pipeline compared to the 10's of thousands miles of existing pipeline is no environmental threat at all.
Yet, again. You lose.
I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
Once again! Which is a larger number 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean that has a greater risk and larger potential for destruction OR 700 barrels traveling in one mile of pipeline on DRY LAND?
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Everything being equal China will by the oil. How it gets to China is the issue.
You want one million barrels a day travel on Pacific Northwest ports are being increasingly used to ship oil and coal to Asia.
Unfortunately,Northwest inland and coastal waters are some of the most dangerous in the world, with strong winds, powerful currents, rocky shores and river bars.
Unstable, steep slopes threaten train traffic heading to coal/oil ports, and a huge fishery and shellfish industry is at risk if a spill occurs.
The Pacific coastal water from south of the Columbia River outfall to the tip of Vancouver Island to the north (see map below), is commonly known as the Graveyard of the Pacific, and for good reason. You start with abruptly rising rocky coasts, add strong winds, and mix in low visibility from incessant fog and rain.
Strong winds, sometimes reaching hurricane strength, batter the Washington and Oregon coasts in winter and the foggiest location in the continental U.S. is Cape Disappointment on the northern terminus of the Columbia River (with 106 days a year of dense fog!). The interaction of the westward moving flow of the Columbia River and incoming waves produces the dangerous Columbia Bar (see picture), with large waves and threatening shoals. Strong easterly winds exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca, frequently reaching 60-80 mph.
Cliff Mass Weather Blog Are Pacific Northwest Waters Too Risky for Oil And Coal Ships
It just doesn't make sense to ship 1 million barrels in that waterway.
Pipe to Houston. Travel by ship in the calmer Gulf of Mexico and then through the Panama Canal to China.
That will be the LEAST risk of greater damage to the USA... not shipping it through waters 1/3 of the year has dense fog!
So you are afraid fog might make a ship more likely to spill? You're grabbing at straws now. You know a little bad weather won't effect a ship.
What is the problem with admitting that 1 million barrels in a tanker on the open ocean is a greater RISK AND more importantly
can damage more then 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
Why is that concept so hard?
Oh shut up. If you can't understand that it will all be put on ships anyway, then I can't help you.
the point is if spilled those solvents will make it to the aquifer, regardless of depth.
pour a 10 gallon barrel of naptha in your backyard and clean it up .. I'll wait.
Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Not to mention so volatile, it would evaporate long before seeping hundreds of feet down into an aquifer.
Liberals are usually pretty weak on the science.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round, with a close to linear average gradient to ground level. Heavy naptha evaporate wouldn't evaporate at all, and light naptha might lose some of it's higher constituents, but not many. How about dazzling me with all that scientific knowledge and explain why you don't think it would make it to the water.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round,
If it doesn't dissolve in water and evaporates before it sinks hundreds of feet thru soil before it reachs the water, what is your point exactly?
I figured your scientific brain could figure it out, but I'll explain. First, solubility has nothing to do with how a liquid disperses in water. That means it can spread all through the water without being dissolved.
Naptha's evaporate somewhere between 86F and higher than 300F depending on the constituents.
I don't have a link, but 10 ft down is between 50F and 60F year round around the world. Look it up if you doubt me.
Next is a map of yearly average temperatures throughout the country
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/climate/US Climate Maps/Lower 48%
OK....stay with me now..... the average temperature will never get high enough to evaporate the naptha any where in the country. Half of the days you can forget any vaporization.
I know what you are thinking. Of course, there will be some hot days, hotter than the average . You're right. Those hot days will certainly get hot enough to evaporate some of the light napthas, on the surface, but once it gets a few inches below ground level, it will quickly cool closer to that 50 to 60 degrees. It will certainly get below the 86F which is the lowest temperature that naptha can evaporate at normal pressure. Some might evaporate, but very little.
Bulldog can't do simple arithmetic either!Typical brain dead response. Naphtha is insoluable in water nimrod. Before you make a complete fool of yourself (too late) I suggest you do basic research.
Not to mention so volatile, it would evaporate long before seeping hundreds of feet down into an aquifer.
Liberals are usually pretty weak on the science.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round, with a close to linear average gradient to ground level. Heavy naptha evaporate wouldn't evaporate at all, and light naptha might lose some of it's higher constituents, but not many. How about dazzling me with all that scientific knowledge and explain why you don't think it would make it to the water.
light Naptha vaporizes between 86F and 194F Heavy naptha between 194F and 392F. The Ogallala stays pretty close to 59F year round,
If it doesn't dissolve in water and evaporates before it sinks hundreds of feet thru soil before it reachs the water, what is your point exactly?
I figured your scientific brain could figure it out, but I'll explain. First, solubility has nothing to do with how a liquid disperses in water. That means it can spread all through the water without being dissolved.
Naptha's evaporate somewhere between 86F and higher than 300F depending on the constituents.
I don't have a link, but 10 ft down is between 50F and 60F year round around the world. Look it up if you doubt me.
Next is a map of yearly average temperatures throughout the country
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/climate/US Climate Maps/Lower 48%
OK....stay with me now..... the average temperature will never get high enough to evaporate the naptha any where in the country. Half of the days you can forget any vaporization.
I know what you are thinking. Of course, there will be some hot days, hotter than the average . You're right. Those hot days will certainly get hot enough to evaporate some of the light napthas, on the surface, but once it gets a few inches below ground level, it will quickly cool closer to that 50 to 60 degrees. It will certainly get below the 86F which is the lowest temperature that naptha can evaporate at normal pressure. Some might evaporate, but very little.
Naptha's evaporate somewhere between 86F and higher than 300F depending on the constituents.
You think it won't evaporate below 86F?
I'm afraid to ask where you got that info.
I have two relatives who work in the Bakken Oil fields... One of them was there when the oil car on a train went off the tracks and burned a town to the ground. Or did you forget that?I only lose if you don't look at all the facts. The US, in the last few years has opened up massive oil and gas reserves that most experts agree will be the highest reserve level in the world. Higher than Saudi Arabia. Looks like energy sufficiency is no longer the problem that it was just a few years ago. No, I won't give you a link to that because it is too easy for you to find yourself. Bakken oil can easily be transported with it's own pipeline that won't have nearly the ecological or political problems that bitumen has. Why don't we use our own, especially when we get no additional energy security or any other benefit from Canadian bitumen anyway?
North Dakota town evacuates after train derails explodes and burns - The Denver Post
Canadian Oil Train Derails Destroys Center of Town
oil train derails burns town - Bing Videos
These are not imagined environmental problems. These are actual environmental disasters.
Your statement, in no way, gives good cause why the pipeline cannot be built.
Yuppers it was Bakken crude that burnt 47 people alive in Lac Megantic.
If people really took the time to consider where their rail lines that are carrying oil go thru urban centers they'd freak.
"It was Bakken oil that exploded in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer, incinerating much of the downtown and killing 47 people.
Again, Keystone’s opponents can’t place the blame on inferior standards or an uncaring foreign government, as the disaster involved a U.S. rail line carrying Bakken oil.
And similar accidents have taken place in the U.S. — in addition to the Casselton accident in December, a 90-car Genesee and Wyoming train carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude oil derailed and caught fire in rural Alabama in November, sending flames 300 feet into the air."
Kelly McParland The surge in rail accidents shifts Keystone debate from Canadian oil to U.S. safety National Post
As far as train wrecks in Canada, I certainly feel for them, but that's their problem to deal with. I'm not aware of any widespread opposition to a pipeline to transport bakkin oil. Bitumen is a problem. Oil from the bakken field , not so much. Why don't they lay one?
You don't pump enough. Don't you get it?
That's why you have been importing from Canada for years on end. Became your #1 supplier in 2004. You are going to get the crude from Alberta whether you personally like it or not.
Your refineries are tooled to handle it. Your refineries want it. Your refineries are buying it.
And it doesn't matter if you build Keystone's final leg or not. There's already Keystone I and II and the southern leg of XL.
The rest is coming mainly by rail. All the contracts are in place and the crude is rolling.
I never had any doubt that it will eventually happen. I'm just saying all the claims of advantages for the US are lies, and there is no reason to do it. Again the golden rule applies. Them that's got the gold makes the rules.
So Bulldog you claim that the advantages touted are all lies.
I'd like you to itemize the lies. TransCanada has been straight up at every turn from what I know.
Oh and here. You can start by refuting what your State Department said.
Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 14, 2008
Keystone Pipeline Presidential Permit
On March 14, the Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP to construct, operate and maintain facilities related to the Keystone crude oil pipeline project.
The Keystone pipeline will extend 1,300 miles from the Canadian border through the U.S. Midwest.
When fully operational, the Keystone pipeline is anticipated to increase U.S. oil imports from Canada by an amount equivalent to as much as 4.5 percent of total U.S. daily imports.
Canada is the United States' largest supplier of oil, natural gas, and electricity.
The Department has determined that issuance of the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP is in the national interest, in part, because it increases U.S. market access to crude oil supplies from a stable and reliable trading partner, Canada, that is in close proximity to the United States.
Canadian oil represents a safe, secure supply for the North American market.
In 2004, Canada became the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States. In 2006, Canada supplied the United States with 2.3 million barrels of oil per day (mbd), equivalent to 17% of total U.S. imports.
The permit was signed in the State Department’s Treaty Room by the Undersecretary of State for Economics, Energy and Agriculture Affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who also serves as the Department’s International Energy Coordinator. Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson witnessed the signature.
The United States and Canada have a wide array of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to discuss energy and the environment, and will continue to address the importance of mitigating greenhouse gases from all sources of energy production.
Prior to making its determination to issue the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, the Department completed an environmental review of the entire project.
All public documents related to the Department’s decision regarding TransCanada Keystone LP’s application can be downloaded at www.keystonepipeline.state.gov.
2008/192
Released on March 14, 2008
Keystone Pipeline Presidential Permit
Still screwed when OPEC decides to control the price of global oil ... it's a fact of life... just keep telling yourself Keystone will have an effect on the global market..
Oil prices plummet as OPEC decides against output cut
Have a good T-day .
I want a safe, secure source of oil.
Canada is better than the Middle East.
Tell me how stopping Keystone helps.
saftey isn't my concern ... that obstacle belongs to healthdolt.
my BIGGEST problem is CONGRESS giving away American citizens hard earned land to another Country ... anyone who supports Keystone supports giving away another mans hard earned property to a French Oil Company.
Screw that, Screw Keystone. Screw Congress.
Still screwed when OPEC decides to control the price of global oil ... it's a fact of life... just keep telling yourself Keystone will have an effect on the global market..
Oil prices plummet as OPEC decides against output cut
Have a good T-day .
Still more evidence that the USA and the world needs to rid itself of being dependent on OIL.
Still screwed when OPEC decides to control the price of global oil ... it's a fact of life... just keep telling yourself Keystone will have an effect on the global market..
Oil prices plummet as OPEC decides against output cut
Have a good T-day .
