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

[Old Rocks]

First, the processed products of that oil are not going remain here. They will be shipped worldwide by ship. Second, the oil from the tar sands is the dirtiest oil in the world at present. Produces more CO2 per gallon of processed product than any other oil. Second, I think the next decade will see enough evidence, unfortunetly in the form of disasters, that we will be making a committed effort to get off fossil fuels, period. In the end, that pipeline will pay for itself only if we can also use it for natural gas or hydrogen.

 

[kaz]

First, the processed products of that oil are not going remain here. They will be shipped worldwide by ship

Yes, oil companies are stupid, they are going to ship oil from the Gulf refineries across the world, then since we are an importer of oil, they are going to ship other oil back across the ocean to the United States. Or maybe to save the effort to unload this oil and load other oil, then can just sail this oil across the ocean and then sail it back.

Thank God that businesses have honest, well intentioned politicians to make our decisions for us because we're just so extremely stupid and they are brilliant, absolutely brilliant. They just cut right through our own stupid decisions and clean up our messes for us. We just don't like to admit they make better decisions for us regarding our money than we do.

Now, baaaaack to what you were saying?

 

[healthmyths]

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.

FACTS idiot... do some research LIKE I DID!
List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I took the above list and broke down according to Ship,Pipe,Terminal,refinery and drilling rig!
Idiot here are the FACTS Idiot!!
From 1910 to 2013 there have been in the United STATES!!!

amount spilled in Barrels % of total

• 23 Ships (S) 11,471,098 73.0%
• 8 drilling rig (d) 3,882,203 24.7%
• 17 pipeline (P) 195,564 1.2%
• 4 Terminal(t) 99,036 0.6%
• 4 Refinery R 75,228 0.5%
• 15,723,129

DO you see what had almost 3/4ths of all oil spilled in barrels??? SHIPS!

NOW do some f...king work like I did and come up with a figure SUBSTANTIATED by the way links provided by the way where your stupid hyperbolic statement
beats these FACTS!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Canada is GOING to ship 1 million barrels a day.. regardless of pipeline or tanker.

Simple question for everyone..
Do we want another Exxon Valdez AND get nothing but EXPENSE in cleaning up a gigantic mess again
or do we want to gain revenue and REDUCE the gigantic mess expense!

That simple.

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

 

[healthmyths]

First, the processed products of that oil are not going remain here. They will be shipped worldwide by ship. Second, the oil from the tar sands is the dirtiest oil in the world at present. Produces more CO2 per gallon of processed product than any other oil. Second, I think the next decade will see enough evidence, unfortunetly in the form of disasters, that we will be making a committed effort to get off fossil fuels, period. In the end, that pipeline will pay for itself only if we can also use it for natural gas or hydrogen.

IT is not the POINT!!!
OLD Rocks!

Which would you prefer.. 1 million barrels floating on the ocean one mile OR
703 barrels traveling 1 mile in a pipeline??

Do you comprehend the COST of another Exxon Valdez VERSUS cost for spill in one mile of Keystone?
Do you know there will be NO revenue from the 1 million barrels floating on the ocean BUT
there will be expenses to be paid by your tax money if another Exxon Valdez occurs?

So again.. which has the greater chance of creating the greater environmental damage... 1 million barrels floating one mile on the open seas OR
703 barrels in one mile of Keystone pipeline?

Can you not see the difference here???

 

[healthmyths]

Canada is GOING to ship 1 million barrels a day.. regardless of pipeline or tanker.

Simple question for everyone..
Do we want another Exxon Valdez AND get nothing but EXPENSE in cleaning up a gigantic mess again
or do we want to gain revenue and REDUCE the gigantic mess expense!

That simple.

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

YES that is correct!
WHICH is more prone though to violent ocean storms? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

Which will require MORE travel on the open seas? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

 

[healthmyths]

I really can't comprehend why there is ANY question as to which mode will have the greater possibility of spills AND the greater amount of the spills!

I guess I have to make it THAT simple!

Again.. 1 million barrels floating one mile on open ocean has more chances of a spill and more amount being spilled and larger area being affected THEN
703 BARRELS in one mile of pipeline on dry land.


Automatic Shut-off Valves
Keystone XL Pipeline will be equipped with more automated shut-off valves placed at shorter intervals than most, if not all, other existing crude oil pipelines in the U.S.
These shutoff valves will be placed every 20 miles along the pipeline route, and extra valves will also be placed, where required, to protect water crossings and other areas of higher consequence. They can be closed remotely on either side of the line, isolating a damaged area within minutes of detection.
Puncture Resistance
Our standards for steel are incredibly high. The steel TransCanada is using on the Gulf Coast and Keystone XL pipelines is high-quality carbon steel with special features that reduce corrosion and enhance strength and pliability. In fact, we are required by the special conditions to ensure that the steel used in the pipeline can withstand impact from a 65-ton excavator with 3.5-inch teeth. This puncture resistance will provide additional protection from third-party damage, which is one of the most common causes of pipeline failures.


Corrosion-Resistant Coating
As with all of TransCanada’s pipelines, safety is at the heart of everything we build. In addition to using high-strength carbon steel, our pipelines are protected with the most advanced, corrosion-resistant fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE) coatings that are designed specifically to meet TransCanada’s safety standards.


Ten safety features of Keystone XL you might not know | Keystone XL Pipeline

 

[edthecynic]

Canada is GOING to ship 1 million barrels a day.. regardless of pipeline or tanker.

Simple question for everyone..
Do we want another Exxon Valdez AND get nothing but EXPENSE in cleaning up a gigantic mess again
or do we want to gain revenue and REDUCE the gigantic mess expense!

That simple.

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

YES that is correct!
WHICH is more prone though to violent ocean storms? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

Which will require MORE travel on the open seas? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

By your "logic" it would be shorter from the Gulf to China than from the west coast of Canada to China.

 

[edthecynic]

Again.. 1 million barrels floating one mile on open ocean has more chances of a spill and more amount being spilled and larger area being affected THEN
703 BARRELS in one mile of pipeline on dry land.

Again.. the mileage is meaningless, it's the barrels per minute that counts!!!!!

To repeat, with the Keystone XL you have both spills on US soil plus on the high seas, without the Keystone XL you have spills on Canadian soil plus the high seas. The only difference is whose soil and water is polluted!!!

 

[initforme]

"How do we know, in the long run, these oil spills don't help the environment?"

How do we know that cancer is not good for you?

 

[kaz]

Canada is GOING to ship 1 million barrels a day.. regardless of pipeline or tanker.

Simple question for everyone..
Do we want another Exxon Valdez AND get nothing but EXPENSE in cleaning up a gigantic mess again
or do we want to gain revenue and REDUCE the gigantic mess expense!

That simple.

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

And the basis for you knowledge that while the US is an IMPORTER of oil, we're going to ship what we refine overseas would be what exactly?

 

[Synthaholic]

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

 

[jillian]

Facts and rationality never got in the way of a Liberal or an environmentalist.

Keystone is the hot-button topic du jour. They are having a field day with it and the only way to defeat it is to appeal to emotional irrational fears.

you know, h… i'd say that it's kind of bizarre for the right to not give a flying whatever about our environment.

so maybe before you dismiss everyone who hasn't been sucked in by multi-national corporations, the discussion should at least be had.

i think that's the problem with the right… the totally dismissive way anything that's socially responsible is treated.

I sit on a petroleum industry-funded board and we spend about $100,000/year by partnering with our state's Department of Natural Resources in identifying abandoned drilling and production facilities throughout the state. We take it upon ourselves to pay for the clean up and remediation of these "brownfields".

Our next project we are working on is partnering with soil and water conservation districts toward the remediation of similarly brine-damaged sites. We've gone through about $50,000 just in the planning stages. It will ultimately end up being a million dollar project. I, and my peers, do give a flying whatever.

@Mr. H you have a particular perspective. and, unlike the right, i'm not dismissing YOUR perspective. My interest, however, is in seeing us move on from fossil fuels… not only as an environmental issue, which it is, but as a security issue. we can't keep enriching countries that hate us. and it's not like any pipeline oil is going to us… it will go to oil companies… who are the same people we're currently enriching.

therefore, while oil matters, the dismissal of any alternatives and the dismissal of people raising alternatives is short-sighted.

you can't have a meaningful discussion in the face of disrespect. (like the o/p's).

 

[edthecynic]

Canada is GOING to ship 1 million barrels a day.. regardless of pipeline or tanker.

Simple question for everyone..
Do we want another Exxon Valdez AND get nothing but EXPENSE in cleaning up a gigantic mess again
or do we want to gain revenue and REDUCE the gigantic mess expense!

That simple.

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

And the basis for you knowledge that while the US is an IMPORTER of oil, we're going to ship what we refine overseas would be what exactly?

 

[healthmyths]

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

YES that is correct!
WHICH is more prone though to violent ocean storms? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

Which will require MORE travel on the open seas? NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

By your "logic" it would be shorter from the Gulf to China than from the west coast of Canada to China.

You are right.

What I should have said what would have more violent storms NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?
Also which would affect a greater coast line.. NW Pacific or Gulf of Mexico?

But of course you still haven't proven that 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean is less likely to have an accident and DEFINITELY would have less environmental impact then
one mile of pipeline carrying 703 barrels!
See that is the point here!
Which carries more and at a greater risk?
You've never done any risk assessment analysis have you?

 

[kaz]

That's right, they will STILL export those barrels over the ocean even after the Keystone XL is built, it will not remove one single barrel from being transported over the seas. The only difference is the tankers will be shipping refined products after the Keystone XL rather than crude!!!!

And the basis for you knowledge that while the US is an IMPORTER of oil, we're going to ship what we refine overseas would be what exactly?

Most of that is Alaskan oil. It's cheaper to ship Alaskan oil to Asian countries and buy it from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala etc. than it is to ship Alaskan oil to the refineries in the gulf. Tankers can't even go through the Panama Canal, they are too big.

It is true that a portion of the oil would go around the Caribbean, but that happens anyway from where ever the oil comes from. The pipeline still reduces shipping oil to refineries on water.

Oil is a commodity Ed. I know you don't know what that means. I would explain it to you, but I also know you don't care. You have your talking points and you're going to just repeat them inanely.

 

[tinydancer]

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

I am assuming you are talking about the Ogallala aquifer. Begs the question. Where the hell were all the protestors before?

 

[tinydancer]

you know, h… i'd say that it's kind of bizarre for the right to not give a flying whatever about our environment.

so maybe before you dismiss everyone who hasn't been sucked in by multi-national corporations, the discussion should at least be had.

i think that's the problem with the right… the totally dismissive way anything that's socially responsible is treated.

I sit on a petroleum industry-funded board and we spend about $100,000/year by partnering with our state's Department of Natural Resources in identifying abandoned drilling and production facilities throughout the state. We take it upon ourselves to pay for the clean up and remediation of these "brownfields".

Our next project we are working on is partnering with soil and water conservation districts toward the remediation of similarly brine-damaged sites. We've gone through about $50,000 just in the planning stages. It will ultimately end up being a million dollar project. I, and my peers, do give a flying whatever.

@Mr. H you have a particular perspective. and, unlike the right, i'm not dismissing YOUR perspective. My interest, however, is in seeing us move on from fossil fuels… not only as an environmental issue, which it is, but as a security issue. we can't keep enriching countries that hate us. and it's not like any pipeline oil is going to us… it will go to oil companies… who are the same people we're currently enriching.

therefore, while oil matters, the dismissal of any alternatives and the dismissal of people raising alternatives is short-sighted.

you can't have a meaningful discussion in the face of disrespect. (like the o/p's).

Then why are all the progressive enviro whackos so against getting their oil from Canada; we have ethical oil.

We're not into beheading, we have fabulous donuts and super beer.


What's not to love? Well ok I keep grovelling over Bieber (sorries forever). But we did give you BTO, Rush, April Wine, Tragically Hip, Nickleback Steppenwolf, Chilliwack and more so I think we've made up for the Bieb over the years.



Ruh roh I don't want to get negged by Syn for forgetting Gino Vanelli. Oh and Max Webster with Kim Mitchell, Our Lady Peace, Red Ryder with one of my favorites Tom Cochrane, of course Alannah Myles and some of the best folkies on the planet with Gordon Lightfoot, Bruce Cockburn and Joni Mitchell just to name a few.

 

[healthmyths]

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

AGAIN... The potential of 85,000 barrels of oil spilling in one mile i.e.
A single large unit train (120 cars) might carry 85,000 barrels of oil.
https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Crude-oil-by-rail.pdf

 

[Mr. H.]

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

The point is, it COULD happen. Amiright?

The same way shit COULD happen with hydraulic fracturing, or drilling ANWR or the eastern Gulf, or the OCS.

I've been listening to that argument for over 35 years. Because something COULD happen, ban the whole damn process.