Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

[BlindBoo]

So you follow the typical leftist model of criticizing every solution without solving anything and then sitting back and being smug and superior. I'm always impressed by that. You guys pull it off so well.

Sorry I didn't see Redfish offering any solutions. Firstly the BP platitudes like "gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back". All statements of supposed fact with no supporting links. Secondly, about the oil is Natural line. I address with the two links you deleted from your response that listed (1) the various contaminate found in crude oil and (2)how those contaminates can affect our fresh water supplies.

Anything else?

Nothing other than the question I asked you. Repeating your criticisms of different solutions agrees with what I said about you.

OK, I'll stipulate that if we did not need energy, then I would not want oil, oil isn't perfect.

However, that isn't a choice. My solution is to focus on US energy first, Canadian energy second. Then buy what we need elsewhere, which if we keep working on the first two solutions won't require getting to step three for too much longer.

Transporting oil across land is safer than shipping it across the sea. Transporting it in pipelines is safer than transporting it in vehicles. It is also cheaper and creates less emissions.

So, I am looking at the admittedly non-perfect solutions and picking the best ones. You are just criticizing them all. So, again, what is your solution. Which using your model then we have the option of criticizing as not perfect and rejecting, right?

Even with the dangers involved, I support building the pipeline.

 

[kaz]

Sorry I didn't see Redfish offering any solutions. Firstly the BP platitudes like "gulf is clean, full of marine life, the marshes have come back". All statements of supposed fact with no supporting links. Secondly, about the oil is Natural line. I address with the two links you deleted from your response that listed (1) the various contaminate found in crude oil and (2)how those contaminates can affect our fresh water supplies.

Anything else?

Nothing other than the question I asked you. Repeating your criticisms of different solutions agrees with what I said about you.

OK, I'll stipulate that if we did not need energy, then I would not want oil, oil isn't perfect.

However, that isn't a choice. My solution is to focus on US energy first, Canadian energy second. Then buy what we need elsewhere, which if we keep working on the first two solutions won't require getting to step three for too much longer.

Transporting oil across land is safer than shipping it across the sea. Transporting it in pipelines is safer than transporting it in vehicles. It is also cheaper and creates less emissions.

So, I am looking at the admittedly non-perfect solutions and picking the best ones. You are just criticizing them all. So, again, what is your solution. Which using your model then we have the option of criticizing as not perfect and rejecting, right?

Even with the dangers involved, I support building the pipeline.

We're good, that's what I asked.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along | Fox News

Starting to have second thoughts about this pipeline after reading this piece.

Still not worked up enough to take a hard stand, but I'll keep researching. How many times does Fox news agree with Obama? Must be something to it ???

 

[nodoginnafight]

hydroelectric dams take advantage of another natural substance. Water. It can be just as dangerous to the surrounding environment as oil can.

Hydroelectric does have an environmental impact. Not nearly as significant as an oil spill, but it does have an impact.

No energy source is without risk - even wind and solar carry some drawbacks.

But some are less of a risk than others.

Environmentalists want to abolish hydroelectric because of the environmental impact. They like to drive SUVs to the rallies.

Wind and solar other than on a small, local scale are just excuses for government to waste massive amounts of money and get almost nothing back.

For a guy who just chastised me for thinking you're a stereotypical liberal, I am seeing you all over the board arguing stereotypical liberal positions on every one...

Are you just hell-bent on picking a fight or something?
I previously posted that I don't have a problem with the pipeline (further research I've done has caught my attention but I say every form of energy has it's dangers and you cry "liberal" ????? even though I never onece advocated "shutting any of them down"???? Really????? What the hell is your problem?

You did the exact same thing with blindboo who supports the pipeline.

You need to aim before you fire there Custer.

 

[kaz]

Hydroelectric does have an environmental impact. Not nearly as significant as an oil spill, but it does have an impact.

No energy source is without risk - even wind and solar carry some drawbacks.

But some are less of a risk than others.

Environmentalists want to abolish hydroelectric because of the environmental impact. They like to drive SUVs to the rallies.

Wind and solar other than on a small, local scale are just excuses for government to waste massive amounts of money and get almost nothing back.

For a guy who just chastised me for thinking you're a stereotypical liberal, I am seeing you all over the board arguing stereotypical liberal positions on every one...

Are you just hell-bent on picking a fight or something?
I previously posted that I don't have a problem with the pipeline (further research I've done has caught my attention but I say every form of energy has it's dangers and you cry "liberal" ????? even though I never onece advocated "shutting any of them down"???? Really????? What the hell is your problem?

You did the exact same thing with blindboo who supports the pipeline.

You need to aim before you fire there Custer.

Chronological order isn't your strong suit. Actually once BlindBoo said he was for the pipeline, I dropped it.

I note that while apparently calling you a liberal gets you upset, you still can't respond with a demonstration of positions. Opposing the pipeline is just retarded, that's not enough to establish actual not liberalism. That liberals even argue against it shows how far off the insanity cliff liberals are. It's a no-brainer for a rational country.

 

[kaz]

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along | Fox News

Starting to have second thoughts about this pipeline after reading this piece.

Still not worked up enough to take a hard stand, but I'll keep researching. How many times does Fox news agree with Obama? Must be something to it ???

This is always my favorite liberal criticism of Fox. Unlike the liberal media, Fox has flaming liberals on all the time to speak for themselves as both staff and guests. Liberals like to grab onto liberals who write or speak for Fox and do like you did, OMG, even Fox News thinks this!

Sally Kohn is a leftist who works for Fox, so how do you spin it?

1) OMG, Fox News thinks this! The reactionaries, it's got to be insane!

2) And yet, even though I'm quoting a LEFTIST on Fox, I'm still going to give them no credit for presenting non conservative views!!!!

LOL, liberal...

 

[healthmyths]

And to all the words written on this thread we still can't seem to comprehend the simple fact.
Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil. A day!
Now do we want them to ship on a 1 million barrel tanker on the open ocean each day and risk a repeat of Exxon Valdez?
Or do we want to protect the 11,000 square miles of ocean at risk and have 703 barrels travel one mile on the land in a steel pipe that is
several factors more secure then 30 years ago with more sophisticated monitoring, shut off values etc.?

I just don't understand how the logic is beyond the Keystone critics' thinking!
Protect the most environment with the least chance of an accident is building the pipeline.. otherwise an catastrophe of Exxon Valdez is acoming!

 

[tinydancer]

One of the reasons that I have a problem with the Keystone pipeline is because of some of the areas it goes through (one of those places is right next to the Black Hills), and because of the type of oil that is going to be shipped via the pipeline.

You people DO realize that tar sands oil is thicker, and in order to make it flow through the pipeline, it needs an additive that allows it to flow, but if the pipe ever breaks, the additives will evaporate leaving only the thick tar sands oil, which DOESN'T float, but rather sinks to the bottom of whatever body of water it hits.

You thought cleaning up places like the Milk River in Montana was tough enough with regular oil, how much worse do you think it's going to be when you have to clean up oil that SINKS?

Especially in some of the water table areas that it goes through. Until the oil companies can assure us absolutely that they know how to effectively clean it up if catastrophe should strike, I say no to the pipeline.

Remember that farmer who had a pipeline break on his property, ruining several acres of good farming land for a long time?

Nope. We don't need the pipeline. The jobs created would be limited to around 2,500, the risk is too great, and the oil companies would simply use the Gulf to ship the oil to other countries around the world, which would then sell it back to us at an inflated price.

If the pipeline is such a good idea, why can't Canada run it from the tar sands area over to the port of Vancouver?

Fool you already accept a million barrels a day off Athabasca. Keystone I and Keystone II were not an issue.


"If the pipeline is such a good idea, why can't Canada run it from the tar sands area over to the port of Vancouver?"

We already do. I've put up the images.

Now shall we talk pipelines? Why do you care about this one so much? You let all the others pass. Keystone I and Keystone II.

Whats it with this one. Are you just all Obama bots from hell without a thought in your head leading you to any rational conclusion?

I'm beginning to think you are. This is ethical oil. We don't stone our workers as those oil fields in the middle east do. . We don't treat them as slaves as in Nigeria. We don't screw them over like they do in Venezuela.

Ethical oil. Think about where your life line comes from. I'm sorry about the Bieber. I can't help that HEY JACK but think about the differences on where you get your oil and I find this attack on Canada nothing short of bizarre.

 

[tinydancer]

And to all the words written on this thread we still can't seem to comprehend the simple fact.
Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil. A day!
Now do we want them to ship on a 1 million barrel tanker on the open ocean each day and risk a repeat of Exxon Valdez?
Or do we want to protect the 11,000 square miles of ocean at risk and have 703 barrels travel one mile on the land in a steel pipe that is
several factors more secure then 30 years ago with more sophisticated monitoring, shut off values etc.?

I just don't understand how the logic is beyond the Keystone critics' thinking!
Protect the most environment with the least chance of an accident is building the pipeline.. otherwise an catastrophe of Exxon Valdez is acoming!

A Hey I could finally give you rep. Always seem to be out when you come around. You give on a continuing basis the most fluid argument pro pipeline. Keep kicking ass man. You really rock. Your arguments are killer. Keep on. I'll keep trying from my little part of the world.

 

[tinydancer]

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along | Fox News

Starting to have second thoughts about this pipeline after reading this piece.

Still not worked up enough to take a hard stand, but I'll keep researching. How many times does Fox news agree with Obama? Must be something to it ???

Strange piece. No basis.

 

[healthmyths]

And to all the words written on this thread we still can't seem to comprehend the simple fact.
Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil. A day!
Now do we want them to ship on a 1 million barrel tanker on the open ocean each day and risk a repeat of Exxon Valdez?
Or do we want to protect the 11,000 square miles of ocean at risk and have 703 barrels travel one mile on the land in a steel pipe that is
several factors more secure then 30 years ago with more sophisticated monitoring, shut off values etc.?

I just don't understand how the logic is beyond the Keystone critics' thinking!
Protect the most environment with the least chance of an accident is building the pipeline.. otherwise an catastrophe of Exxon Valdez is acoming!

A Hey I could finally give you rep. Always seem to be out when you come around. You give on a continuing basis the most fluid argument pro pipeline. Keep kicking ass man. You really rock. Your arguments are killer. Keep on. I'll keep trying from my little part of the world.

Well thank you MA'AM!

Just seems such a simple understanding that makes sense.
They're gonna ship 1 million barrels a day. It will be cheaper i.e. less potential of a mess and less of mess to clean up using Keystone!

Cleaning up the Exxon Valdez disaster took four summers and cost approximately $2 billion, according to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. In 1991, Exxon reached a civil settlement with the U.S. government and the state of Alaska in which it agreed to pay $900 million in payments, a $25 million criminal fine and $100 million in restitution.
25 Years After Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Company Still Hasn't Paid For Long-Term Environmental Damages | ThinkProgress

 

[tinydancer]

Very true

What is Keystone going to do for me? Will it bring lower gas prices? Will it spike our employment numbers?

Otherwise....why should I care if it gets built or not?

So you won't protect our ocean is what you are saying?

Keystone will not remove a single tanker from our oceans unless a tanker is capable of moving from Central Canada to Texas.

Bullsht and you lose 500 tanker trucks a day getting Bakken crude to market. You should see right now what California is driving it in/
I know my shit. By all means continue.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So we're going to transport oil over ground that holds the majority of fresh water in this country? Is this sane?

 

[Roguewave]

And to all the words written on this thread we still can't seem to comprehend the simple fact.
Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil. A day!
Now do we want them to ship on a 1 million barrel tanker on the open ocean each day and risk a repeat of Exxon Valdez?
Or do we want to protect the 11,000 square miles of ocean at risk and have 703 barrels travel one mile on the land in a steel pipe that is
several factors more secure then 30 years ago with more sophisticated monitoring, shut off values etc.?

I just don't understand how the logic is beyond the Keystone critics' thinking!
Protect the most environment with the least chance of an accident is building the pipeline.. otherwise an catastrophe of Exxon Valdez is acoming!

Let me start by saying I endorse building the pipeline. I do so because it is an economic boon to the US and the world runs on oil for the foreseeable future. Tertiary energy sources such as solar and wind are laughable substitutes suitable only to feather the beds of Washington crony capitalists. However, the save-the-oceans argument is specious as a reason because the Canadian shale oil is destined for a tanker if through Vancouver or Texas ports. We in the US may siphon some off, but the vast majority is earmarked for export with the Fox News article making the allegation that some already used in the Midwest will even be then shipped out. Still, the logical place for the oil is the Texas Gulf Coast into the world market of fungible oil sources.

As for eventually increasing GHGs, the world's plants need the food as much as the humans need the energy from the conversion of it. The more CO2, the greener the planet. No apologies, no excuses.

 

[ABikerSailor]

How many oil tankers have failed and spilled oil?

How many times have pipelines sprung leaks and screwed up the environment? Remember when that one oil spill screwed up an entire neighborhood? How about the one that took out several acres of a farmer's land? Wanna talk about the spill from a pipeline in the Milk River up in Montana?

Compare accidents with ships to accidents with pipelines, and not only look at the amount spilled, but also look at the frequency, as well as the number of places damaged.

Sorry..................but pipes fail more often than ships.

 

[Politico]

Who needs it?

What is in it for me?

This is in fact the only thing you've ever posted. You now have 60K plus posts that only care about that question.

The answer is that no one is going to send you a check, so directly nothing. Indirectly, it helps our economy, provides jobs and reduces funding for bad governments that sit on most of the world's oil. If you still have a car, it drives down the price of gas.

I realize I lost you after "no one is going to send you a check" ...

Very true

What is Keystone going to do for me? Will it bring lower gas prices? Will it spike our employment numbers?

Otherwise....why should I care if it gets built or not?

Nothing is in it for you. The oil will just be sent somewhere else like it always is. That's not the point of the thread though.

 

[healthmyths]

So we're going to transport oil over ground that holds the majority of fresh water in this country? Is this sane?

Is it sane to put 1 million barrels on the ocean in a tanker that carries 1 million barrels every single mile of the open ocean VERSUS
in the same mile of travel ONLY 703 barrels travel on safe secure land in a secured pipe?

Tell me which within ONE hour of notification of a spill would spill the most?
Which would after spilling require MORE effort to clean up MORE OIL over a WIDER area?

Don't you get it??
The pipeline carries 1 million barrels in the entire 1,700 miles of pipe.
Picture though the tanker.. IT CARRIES 1 million barrels sitting still.. much less traveling a mile or thousands of miles!
WHICH has the greater amount of oil at one time traveling ONE MILE??

Can you picture that? Or is that too hard to comprehend??

 

[kaz]

This is in fact the only thing you've ever posted. You now have 60K plus posts that only care about that question.

The answer is that no one is going to send you a check, so directly nothing. Indirectly, it helps our economy, provides jobs and reduces funding for bad governments that sit on most of the world's oil. If you still have a car, it drives down the price of gas.

I realize I lost you after "no one is going to send you a check" ...

Very true

What is Keystone going to do for me? Will it bring lower gas prices? Will it spike our employment numbers?

Otherwise....why should I care if it gets built or not?

Nothing is in it for you. The oil will just be sent somewhere else like it always is. That's not the point of the thread though.

Yes, of course the oil companies will transport oil refined here somewhere else, then since we're an importer of oil, they will get oil somewhere else and transport it here. Gotcha. Can't get one past you, can we Skippy?

 

[kaz]

How many oil tankers have failed and spilled oil?

How many times have pipelines sprung leaks and screwed up the environment? Remember when that one oil spill screwed up an entire neighborhood? How about the one that took out several acres of a farmer's land? Wanna talk about the spill from a pipeline in the Milk River up in Montana?

Compare accidents with ships to accidents with pipelines, and not only look at the amount spilled, but also look at the frequency, as well as the number of places damaged.

Sorry..................but pipes fail more often than ships.

Put down the kool-aid and do a test. Fill two identical glasses with ink. Take the first, and dump it on your kitchen floor and clean it up. Wow, a mess, that sucked. Now, fill up your bath tub with water and dump the second glass in there and clean it up...

Now think about the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf and how much harder it was to clean oil out of large bodies of water.

As for your contention transporting oil across water is less likely to result in an accident than across land, I can help you with ignorance, I can't help you with idiocy. You're on your own on that one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons

incorrect

the number of gallons in a barrel of oil is 42 gallons

the correct number is 29526 gallons

one tanker car can carry 63 thousand gallons of oil

like the one that crashed and burned in Cassleton North Dakota last year

from 2009 to 2013 the number of oil tankers has risen from

11 thousand to 400 thousand in 2013 and growing