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

[healthmyths]

I am so tired but I still have the fight. lets rock it.

?????

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm not convinced that we need to accept ANY of the risk just to send diesel and jet fuel to foreign markets. I'm I'm pretty darn sure the taxpayers don't need to pay $1.8 billion in subsidies to the referies to help them re-tool in order to handle this sludge. The oil companies are making record profits, why do they need taxpayer money? Especially since none of it is heading to the U.S. market.

 

[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 ???

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...

Yeah, sure they do - LOL. Just what I would expect a redneck segregationist to reply.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm not convinced that we need to accept ANY of the risk just to send diesel and jet fuel to foreign markets. I'm I'm pretty darn sure the taxpayers don't need to pay $1.8 billion in subsidies to the referies to help them re-tool in order to handle this sludge. The oil companies are making record profits, why do they need taxpayer money? Especially since none of it is heading to the U.S. market.

AGAIN... Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels a day!

Are you in favor of them shipping by oil tankers that according to this web page List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
have the largest number AND largest amount of oil spills?
amount spilled % of total
in Barrels # by spilled Oil
11,471,098 spilt by 23 Ships or 73.0%
3,882,203 spilt by 8 drilling rig 24.7%
195,564 spilt by 17 pipeline 1.2%
99,036 spilt by 4 Terminal 0.6%
75,228 spilt by 4 Refinery 0.5%
15,723,129

So you'd rather TAKE the chance that nearly 3 times the chance a tanker will spill NEARLY 300% more oil on 11,000 sq.miles of ocean versus
leaks that will be detected and stopped with in several hours spilling less then 700 barrels in the same mile a 1 million tanker travels on the ocean?

I really don't understand how complicated this is to comprehend!
1 million barrels in a tanker have a greater chance of an accident and will spill a greater amount of oil over a larger area and YOU still favor that?

AGAIN.. remember Canada is going to ship the 1 million barrels!
Would you rather then shipped by land then a a single tanker holding 1 million barrels on the open ocean?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT and YET don't want the Keystone... weird!!!

 

[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...

Yeah, sure they do - LOL. Just what I would expect a redneck segregationist to reply.

Hitting the bottle early today? I guess it's 5pm somewhere.

You said "fox" thought this, I pointed out it was a liberal on Fox, you were playing word games. Apparently you still are.

 

[healthmyths]

I just laugh at some of you people!
You can't seem to make up your mind whether 1 million barrels floating on the stormy ocean traveling one mile is safer the 700 barrels going one mile with link detection that would shut the flow down within several hours limiting a spill to less the 5,000 barrels!
So I ask again.
Which has the greater chance of a spill a tanker on the open stormy ocean or a pipeline on dry land?
Which has the potential of GREATER damage 1 million barrels in a tanker that could spread over 11,000 square miles OR
700 barrels in one mile of pipe.?

 

[edthecynic]

I just laugh at some of you people!
You can't seem to make up your mind whether 1 million barrels floating on the stormy ocean traveling one mile is safer the 700 barrels going one mile with link detection that would shut the flow down within several hours limiting a spill to less the 5,000 barrels!
So I ask again.
Which has the greater chance of a spill a tanker on the open stormy ocean or a pipeline on dry land?
Which has the potential of GREATER damage 1 million barrels in a tanker that could spread over 11,000 square miles OR
700 barrels in one mile of pipe.?

Damn you are thick!

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

 

[Old Rocks]

The concept is "the lesser of two evils".
Canada is shipping one million barrels whether the pipeline is built or not!
So let's reduce the risks, i.e. not ship by 1 million barrel tankers at least from the dangerous NW Pacific and ship
via a pipeline that is far less dangerous AND we can at least recover some costs.. i.e. jobs, fees,taxes,etc?
Otherwise we'll have the expenses of clean up "Remember the Valdez!! " and nothing in the way of revenue!

The Valdez was human error.


Identified causes

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

• Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[15]
• The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[15]
• Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar.[16]

Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. However, as the senior officer, he was in command of the ship even though he was asleep in his bunk. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar.

But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate."[17] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.[16]

Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,[18] included:

1. Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[19]
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[20]
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[20]
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.[21]
5. Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.[21]
6. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[19]

This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and, under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans".[citation needed]

I agree! It was human error. An error to let a single person maneuver 1 million barrels on the open ocean.
NO question.

Now tell me again human error.
As you may not have seen this quote from a pipeline manager answering this question:
"Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."

"Ok. First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "

HUMAN ERROR.

Which would you prefer the "human error" to be the cause ??
pipelines carrying 700 barrels in one mile that if leaks are detected within hours and the pipeline shut down OR
human error in navigating in a storm 1 million barrels on the open ocean?

Again... why are you are against a risk of 700 barrels in one mile of pipe versus 1 million barrels traveling one mile on open ocean in a tanker with a human at the controls???

Yes, 40 to 70 years old. That over 50% of the pipes in the ground. 700 barrels can pretty much destroy a river.

 

[Old Rocks]

Injection wells, or the actual fracturing process? That's the debate and the focus of investigation. And an inconsequential product of a highly successful endeavor IMO.

BTW... that's MISTER Kemo Sabe to you, bub!

Until the day that it becomes inconsequential, with a major earthquake that may do massive damage, or worse.

I don't think that's even scientifically possible. Again, these are minor seismic events and are associated with wastewater disposal not the act of hydraulic fracturing.
Texas alone has 10,000 such disposal wells.

If you want to see "massive damage", just look at agriculture. Yet we hear no calls for environmental justice in that regard.

Hmmm... I kinda screwed up that quote box LOL. Oh well trying to cut out the lengthy stuff.[/QUOTE]

Fracking lubricates existing faults. Should they find a dormant fault like the one that created the quakes of 1812,1813 around New Madrid, you may see a massive quake from fracking. Something the people doing the fracking should be aware of.

 

[Mr. H.]

Injection wells, or the actual fracturing process? That's the debate and the focus of investigation. And an inconsequential product of a highly successful endeavor IMO.

BTW... that's MISTER Kemo Sabe to you, bub!

Until the day that it becomes inconsequential, with a major earthquake that may do massive damage, or worse.

I don't think that's even scientifically possible. Again, these are minor seismic events and are associated with wastewater disposal not the act of hydraulic fracturing.
Texas alone has 10,000 such disposal wells.

If you want to see "massive damage", just look at agriculture. Yet we hear no calls for environmental justice in that regard.

Hmmm... I kinda screwed up that quote box LOL. Oh well trying to cut out the lengthy stuff.

Fracking lubricates existing faults. Should they find a dormant fault like the one that created the quakes of 1812,1813 around New Madrid, you may see a massive quake from fracking. Something the people doing the fracking should be aware of.[/QUOTE]

I think this site has gone wonky. Those quotes are all messed up LOL.

 

[Mr. H.]

LOL what the hell is going on with posts and quotes???

 

[healthmyths]

I just laugh at some of you people!
You can't seem to make up your mind whether 1 million barrels floating on the stormy ocean traveling one mile is safer the 700 barrels going one mile with link detection that would shut the flow down within several hours limiting a spill to less the 5,000 barrels!
So I ask again.
Which has the greater chance of a spill a tanker on the open stormy ocean or a pipeline on dry land?
Which has the potential of GREATER damage 1 million barrels in a tanker that could spread over 11,000 square miles OR
700 barrels in one mile of pipe.?

Damn you are thick!

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

What tankers in the midwest? I didn't know there were any ports big enough to hold 1 million barrel tankers? Mississippi river isn't deep enough!

Risks? Did you see the table I displayed where tankers have 3 times the accidental spills AND 3 times the amount of oil spilled then pipelines.
And you are still think pipelines are just piece of steel buried and forgotten... OLD timer!!!
They are precision manufactured. All wields x-rayed. Then counting put around... THEN what are called "cathodic protection" to detect leaks and within hours
any leaks are stopped. That's 2014 technology. ALL the leaks you've read or heard are either 40 to 70 year old pipes.. or 3rd party digging accidents.
Both of which are NOT capable in 2014 technology!

AGAIN prove to me Canada without Keystone will not ship 1 million barrels a day via tankers? Do you know that for a fact?

 

[skookerasbil]

more AGW k00k losing

 

[healthmyths]

The Valdez was human error.


Identified causes

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

• Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[15]
• The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[15]
• Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar.[16]

Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. However, as the senior officer, he was in command of the ship even though he was asleep in his bunk. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar.

But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate."[17] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.[16]

Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,[18] included:

1. Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[19]
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[20]
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[20]
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.[21]
5. Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.[21]
6. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[19]

This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and, under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans".[citation needed]

I agree! It was human error. An error to let a single person maneuver 1 million barrels on the open ocean.
NO question.

Now tell me again human error.
As you may not have seen this quote from a pipeline manager answering this question:
"Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."

"Ok. First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "

HUMAN ERROR.

Which would you prefer the "human error" to be the cause ??
pipelines carrying 700 barrels in one mile that if leaks are detected within hours and the pipeline shut down OR
human error in navigating in a storm 1 million barrels on the open ocean?

Again... why are you are against a risk of 700 barrels in one mile of pipe versus 1 million barrels traveling one mile on open ocean in a tanker with a human at the controls???

Yes, 40 to 70 years old. That over 50% of the pipes in the ground. 700 barrels can pretty much destroy a river.

WE are talking about 2014 pipeline technology old timer!!!
And 700 barrels destroy a river??? What river are you talking about that would be destroyed by a 700 barrel leak in the Keystone?
Please get better facts just you saying "destroy a river"... geez don't ever get tired of hyperbole all over your face???

 

[edthecynic]

I just laugh at some of you people!
You can't seem to make up your mind whether 1 million barrels floating on the stormy ocean traveling one mile is safer the 700 barrels going one mile with link detection that would shut the flow down within several hours limiting a spill to less the 5,000 barrels!
So I ask again.
Which has the greater chance of a spill a tanker on the open stormy ocean or a pipeline on dry land?
Which has the potential of GREATER damage 1 million barrels in a tanker that could spread over 11,000 square miles OR
700 barrels in one mile of pipe.?

Damn you are thick!

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

What tankers in the midwest? I didn't know there were any ports big enough to hold 1 million barrel tankers? Mississippi river isn't deep enough!

Risks? Did you see the table I displayed where tankers have 3 times the accidental spills AND 3 times the amount of oil spilled then pipelines.
And you are still think pipelines are just piece of steel buried and forgotten... OLD timer!!!
They are precision manufactured. All wields x-rayed. Then counting put around... THEN what are called "cathodic protection" to detect leaks and within hours
any leaks are stopped. That's 2014 technology. ALL the leaks you've read or heard are either 40 to 70 year old pipes.. or 3rd party digging accidents.
Both of which are NOT capable in 2014 technology!

AGAIN prove to me Canada without Keystone will not ship 1 million barrels a day via tankers? Do you know that for a fact?

The perpetual dumb act! That was the point, there are no super-tankers in the Midwest!

The Canadian people have already rejected a Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast, but a panel approved the project with 209 environmental, financial and technical conditions. Enbridge must set aside $950-million in liability coverage to cover costs of a potential spill, including at least $100-million available within 10 days in the event of a large rupture and $250-million of “no-fault” insurance, the panel said. “We are not celebrating,” Enbridge CEO Al Monaco told reporters after the decision was released. IF it is ever actually built it will cost a lot more than the Keystone XL, which is why they are pushing the US route.

 

[Old Rocks]

I agree! It was human error. An error to let a single person maneuver 1 million barrels on the open ocean.
NO question.

Now tell me again human error.
As you may not have seen this quote from a pipeline manager answering this question:
"Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."

"Ok. First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "

HUMAN ERROR.

Which would you prefer the "human error" to be the cause ??
pipelines carrying 700 barrels in one mile that if leaks are detected within hours and the pipeline shut down OR
human error in navigating in a storm 1 million barrels on the open ocean?

Again... why are you are against a risk of 700 barrels in one mile of pipe versus 1 million barrels traveling one mile on open ocean in a tanker with a human at the controls???

Yes, 40 to 70 years old. That over 50% of the pipes in the ground. 700 barrels can pretty much destroy a river.

WE are talking about 2014 pipeline technology old timer!!!
And 700 barrels destroy a river??? What river are you talking about that would be destroyed by a 700 barrel leak in the Keystone?
Please get better facts just you saying "destroy a river"... geez don't ever get tired of hyperbole all over your face???

Ask the people in West Virginia and Virginia about what it takes to destroy a river. Ask them if they ever got anyone to state flat out that their water was again safe to drink.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm not convinced that we need to accept ANY of the risk just to send diesel and jet fuel to foreign markets. I'm I'm pretty darn sure the taxpayers don't need to pay $1.8 billion in subsidies to the referies to help them re-tool in order to handle this sludge. The oil companies are making record profits, why do they need taxpayer money? Especially since none of it is heading to the U.S. market.

AGAIN... Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels a day!

Are you in favor of them shipping by oil tankers that according to this web page List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
have the largest number AND largest amount of oil spills?
amount spilled % of total
in Barrels # by spilled Oil
11,471,098 spilt by 23 Ships or 73.0%
3,882,203 spilt by 8 drilling rig 24.7%
195,564 spilt by 17 pipeline 1.2%
99,036 spilt by 4 Terminal 0.6%
75,228 spilt by 4 Refinery 0.5%
15,723,129

So you'd rather TAKE the chance that nearly 3 times the chance a tanker will spill NEARLY 300% more oil on 11,000 sq.miles of ocean versus
leaks that will be detected and stopped with in several hours spilling less then 700 barrels in the same mile a 1 million tanker travels on the ocean?

I really don't understand how complicated this is to comprehend!
1 million barrels in a tanker have a greater chance of an accident and will spill a greater amount of oil over a larger area and YOU still favor that?

AGAIN.. remember Canada is going to ship the 1 million barrels!
Would you rather then shipped by land then a a single tanker holding 1 million barrels on the open ocean?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT and YET don't want the Keystone... weird!!!

My personal concerns with the pipeline are not environmental concerns.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why we need to give the oil companies $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money so they can pipe this sludge across the U.S. to get it refined into products for foreign markets.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against the pipeline. I'm still looking into as much good information as I can to get the whole picture.

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

Hmmm - that's a fairly decent question. Since the refined products are earmarked for sale abroad, how are they gonna get the product to the overseas markets???

But anyway, the environmental questions are not my main questions right now. My first order of business is how we justify spending $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to help the refineries re-tool to handle this stuff?

 

[healthmyths]

I'm not convinced that we need to accept ANY of the risk just to send diesel and jet fuel to foreign markets. I'm I'm pretty darn sure the taxpayers don't need to pay $1.8 billion in subsidies to the referies to help them re-tool in order to handle this sludge. The oil companies are making record profits, why do they need taxpayer money? Especially since none of it is heading to the U.S. market.

AGAIN... Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels a day!

Are you in favor of them shipping by oil tankers that according to this web page List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
have the largest number AND largest amount of oil spills?
amount spilled % of total
in Barrels # by spilled Oil
11,471,098 spilt by 23 Ships or 73.0%
3,882,203 spilt by 8 drilling rig 24.7%
195,564 spilt by 17 pipeline 1.2%
99,036 spilt by 4 Terminal 0.6%
75,228 spilt by 4 Refinery 0.5%
15,723,129

So you'd rather TAKE the chance that nearly 3 times the chance a tanker will spill NEARLY 300% more oil on 11,000 sq.miles of ocean versus
leaks that will be detected and stopped with in several hours spilling less then 700 barrels in the same mile a 1 million tanker travels on the ocean?

I really don't understand how complicated this is to comprehend!
1 million barrels in a tanker have a greater chance of an accident and will spill a greater amount of oil over a larger area and YOU still favor that?

AGAIN.. remember Canada is going to ship the 1 million barrels!
Would you rather then shipped by land then a a single tanker holding 1 million barrels on the open ocean?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT and YET don't want the Keystone... weird!!!

My personal concerns with the pipeline are not environmental concerns.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why we need to give the oil companies $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money so they can pipe this sludge across the U.S. to get it refined into products for foreign markets.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against the pipeline. I'm still looking into as much good information as I can to get the whole picture.

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

Hmmm - that's a fairly decent question. Since the refined products are earmarked for sale abroad, how are they gonna get the product to the overseas markets???

But anyway, the environmental questions are not my main questions right now. My first order of business is how we justify spending $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to help the refineries re-tool to handle this stuff?

Maybe the first order is to determine how much it will cost if a 1 million barrel Exxon Valdez event occurs?

To me it is less expensive to pay for the pipeline then to live in constant fear of another Exxon Valdez contaminating 11,000 square miles of ocean.

Why is that such a hard thing to grasp?
Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels either way. Which way would cause the least amount of damage?

 

[nodoginnafight]

AGAIN... Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels a day!

Are you in favor of them shipping by oil tankers that according to this web page List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
have the largest number AND largest amount of oil spills?
amount spilled % of total
in Barrels # by spilled Oil
11,471,098 spilt by 23 Ships or 73.0%
3,882,203 spilt by 8 drilling rig 24.7%
195,564 spilt by 17 pipeline 1.2%
99,036 spilt by 4 Terminal 0.6%
75,228 spilt by 4 Refinery 0.5%
15,723,129

So you'd rather TAKE the chance that nearly 3 times the chance a tanker will spill NEARLY 300% more oil on 11,000 sq.miles of ocean versus
leaks that will be detected and stopped with in several hours spilling less then 700 barrels in the same mile a 1 million tanker travels on the ocean?

I really don't understand how complicated this is to comprehend!
1 million barrels in a tanker have a greater chance of an accident and will spill a greater amount of oil over a larger area and YOU still favor that?

AGAIN.. remember Canada is going to ship the 1 million barrels!
Would you rather then shipped by land then a a single tanker holding 1 million barrels on the open ocean?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT and YET don't want the Keystone... weird!!!

My personal concerns with the pipeline are not environmental concerns.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why we need to give the oil companies $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money so they can pipe this sludge across the U.S. to get it refined into products for foreign markets.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against the pipeline. I'm still looking into as much good information as I can to get the whole picture.

The Keystone XL is diverting Canadian tar sand from the Midwest, where it will be sold in the Midwest, to the Gulf for export overseas. So you are increasing the distance the crude travels by pipeline, increasing the risk, and then it is loaded onto tankers adding additional risk as you have quantified. Without the Keystone XL, no tankers in the Midwest and shorter pipeline.

So which is greater, longer pipeline and tankers or shorter pipeline and no tankers?????

Hmmm - that's a fairly decent question. Since the refined products are earmarked for sale abroad, how are they gonna get the product to the overseas markets???

But anyway, the environmental questions are not my main questions right now. My first order of business is how we justify spending $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to help the refineries re-tool to handle this stuff?

Maybe the first order is to determine how much it will cost if a 1 million barrel Exxon Valdez event occurs?

To me it is less expensive to pay for the pipeline then to live in constant fear of another Exxon Valdez contaminating 11,000 square miles of ocean.

Why is that such a hard thing to grasp?
Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels either way. Which way would cause the least amount of damage?

Why should U.S. taxpayers be stuck with the bill for EITHER?

 

[ScienceRocks]

My personal concerns with the pipeline are not environmental concerns.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why we need to give the oil companies $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money so they can pipe this sludge across the U.S. to get it refined into products for foreign markets.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against the pipeline. I'm still looking into as much good information as I can to get the whole picture.



Hmmm - that's a fairly decent question. Since the refined products are earmarked for sale abroad, how are they gonna get the product to the overseas markets???

But anyway, the environmental questions are not my main questions right now. My first order of business is how we justify spending $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to help the refineries re-tool to handle this stuff?

Maybe the first order is to determine how much it will cost if a 1 million barrel Exxon Valdez event occurs?

To me it is less expensive to pay for the pipeline then to live in constant fear of another Exxon Valdez contaminating 11,000 square miles of ocean.

Why is that such a hard thing to grasp?
Canada is going to ship 1 million barrels either way. Which way would cause the least amount of damage?

Why should U.S. taxpayers be stuck with the bill for EITHER?

The tax payer shouldn't have to pay for the clean up every few days as it happens.