Biden to cancel the Keystone pipeline via executive action on 1st day, Trudeau already complaining, conservatives like Ann Coulter already pouncing!

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!
 
You fucktard cons are so mislead.
How is oil sold after it is 'developed'
This is Canadian OIL. The Tar Sands from Alberta, are hard to develop, 3X the cost, but sure, Let's pretend this is good.

How is this oil sold? Do you contards even know? Open Market. HOW IS OIL SOLD??? Look it up
Does this mean we (The USA) are dependent upon foreign Nations? NO.
That is a great (R) talking point.

The (R) party screams "this" but cons, you RIGHT WING idiots, believe "this"
You are such fools.
 
The way 2022 is shaping up there will be a "red wave" in the House sweeping democrats out.
That sets 2024 up nicely for Republicans.

I don't think so.. Trump is out for revenge.. He'll destroy the Republican party..

Remember Keystone XL is an export pipeline.
Wrong. The Keystone XL brings Canadian oil to the US.
Without it, trains and trucks transport the oil, but in much less volume.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?



That's very easy.

Water.

Nothing living on this planet can live without it.

We don't have that pipeline and have no benefit from it yet so we won't be losing anything.

Only those who invested in it will lose.

That pipeline is allowed to cross The Ogallala Aquifer, America's largest aquifer.

Which is located in what is called "America's Bread Basket." Millions of farms depend on that water. Millions of Americans depend on that water.

It is beyond stupid to allow that pipeline to come anywhere near that aquifer. Especially since it's not even tar sand from America. It's tar sand from Canada. Let Canada put their environment at risk. Oh yeah, Canada won't do that.

The fact that you even have to ask is insulting to every intelligent person on this board.
If you are so intelligent... why not read what an Ogallala Aquifer has to say?
UNL expert: Ogallala Aquifer has little risk of Keystone pipeline oil spills
FACTS... NOT guesses!!
Scattered around the state are close to 6,000 holes each about 5 inches in diameter drilled to the base of the Ogallala Aquifer. During the 1970s, Goeke drilled about 1,000 of those holes in the deepest part of the aquifer.
Seventy-five to 80 percent of the aquifer lies west of the proposed pipeline route. The aquifer is sloped downward going east. If there were a spill, that entire section is unavailable to be harmed because water cannot move uphill. The 15 to 20 percent left, Goeke says, is in very little risk thanks to abundant fine-grain clays, sediment and sandstone separating the aquifer and potential contaminants from the pipeline.
While Goeke agrees 20 percent would be a problem, he thinks the chances of a leak reaching the aquifer are very minimal.
“It can’t get down to the water table because of the nature of the sediments in the unsaturated zone,” he said.
Goeke likens pipelines to the fear of flying.

The only area of concern regarding water pollution, according to Goeke, occurs where the pipeline will have to be pulled under the Platte River and through the 12-mile-wide valley, where the water table is high or near the earth’s surface.

But experts like you haven't I guessed realized that 1 mile of pipe contains less than 700 barrels of oil.
Each mile of pipe has 16 monitors to detect leaks.

But again experts like you haven't shown any proof though...Goeke who has lived on the Ogallala Aquifer for over 30 years... I think has just a little more expertise!

Keystone has a lousy safety record.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.
But YOU still didn't give any substantiation for your remarks!
I don't believe a word YOU say because you don't offer any proof...just your guesses.
Where is your proof of your statements?
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.

You got it right and that's rare on this board.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?



That's very easy.

Water.

Nothing living on this planet can live without it.

We don't have that pipeline and have no benefit from it yet so we won't be losing anything.

Only those who invested in it will lose.

That pipeline is allowed to cross The Ogallala Aquifer, America's largest aquifer.

Which is located in what is called "America's Bread Basket." Millions of farms depend on that water. Millions of Americans depend on that water.

It is beyond stupid to allow that pipeline to come anywhere near that aquifer. Especially since it's not even tar sand from America. It's tar sand from Canada. Let Canada put their environment at risk. Oh yeah, Canada won't do that.

The fact that you even have to ask is insulting to every intelligent person on this board.
If you are so intelligent... why not read what an Ogallala Aquifer has to say?
UNL expert: Ogallala Aquifer has little risk of Keystone pipeline oil spills
FACTS... NOT guesses!!
Scattered around the state are close to 6,000 holes each about 5 inches in diameter drilled to the base of the Ogallala Aquifer. During the 1970s, Goeke drilled about 1,000 of those holes in the deepest part of the aquifer.
Seventy-five to 80 percent of the aquifer lies west of the proposed pipeline route. The aquifer is sloped downward going east. If there were a spill, that entire section is unavailable to be harmed because water cannot move uphill. The 15 to 20 percent left, Goeke says, is in very little risk thanks to abundant fine-grain clays, sediment and sandstone separating the aquifer and potential contaminants from the pipeline.
While Goeke agrees 20 percent would be a problem, he thinks the chances of a leak reaching the aquifer are very minimal.
“It can’t get down to the water table because of the nature of the sediments in the unsaturated zone,” he said.
Goeke likens pipelines to the fear of flying.

The only area of concern regarding water pollution, according to Goeke, occurs where the pipeline will have to be pulled under the Platte River and through the 12-mile-wide valley, where the water table is high or near the earth’s surface.

But experts like you haven't I guessed realized that 1 mile of pipe contains less than 700 barrels of oil.
Each mile of pipe has 16 monitors to detect leaks.

But again experts like you haven't shown any proof though...Goeke who has lived on the Ogallala Aquifer for over 30 years... I think has just a little more expertise!

Keystone has a lousy safety record.
PROVE it! ONLY your statement? GEEZ that's like me saying "YOU ARE A LIAR" and without you putting up any substantiation, or links... YOU made that statement up!
GET some proof! That's the major problem with people like you! You make dumb ass unsupported statements and then other dumb asses repeat YOUR statements as FACTS! GET real proof of that statement!
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

healthmyths



Keystone XL Pipeline Environmental Impact
Leaks and the pipeline

Tar sands oil is thicker, more acidic, and more corrosive than lighter conventional crude, and this ups the likelihood that a pipeline carrying it will leak. Indeed, one study found that between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average for pipelines carrying conventional crude.

Since it first went into operation in 2010, TC Energy’s original Keystone Pipeline System has leaked more than a dozen times; one incident in North Dakota sent a 60-foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air.

Most recently, on October 31, 2019, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 378,000 gallons.

And the risk that Keystone XL will spill has only been heightened: A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on pipes for the project is defective from being stored outside and exposed to the elements for the last decade.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?



That's very easy.

Water.

Nothing living on this planet can live without it.

We don't have that pipeline and have no benefit from it yet so we won't be losing anything.

Only those who invested in it will lose.

That pipeline is allowed to cross The Ogallala Aquifer, America's largest aquifer.

Which is located in what is called "America's Bread Basket." Millions of farms depend on that water. Millions of Americans depend on that water.

It is beyond stupid to allow that pipeline to come anywhere near that aquifer. Especially since it's not even tar sand from America. It's tar sand from Canada. Let Canada put their environment at risk. Oh yeah, Canada won't do that.

The fact that you even have to ask is insulting to every intelligent person on this board.
If you are so intelligent... why not read what an Ogallala Aquifer has to say?
UNL expert: Ogallala Aquifer has little risk of Keystone pipeline oil spills
FACTS... NOT guesses!!
Scattered around the state are close to 6,000 holes each about 5 inches in diameter drilled to the base of the Ogallala Aquifer. During the 1970s, Goeke drilled about 1,000 of those holes in the deepest part of the aquifer.
Seventy-five to 80 percent of the aquifer lies west of the proposed pipeline route. The aquifer is sloped downward going east. If there were a spill, that entire section is unavailable to be harmed because water cannot move uphill. The 15 to 20 percent left, Goeke says, is in very little risk thanks to abundant fine-grain clays, sediment and sandstone separating the aquifer and potential contaminants from the pipeline.
While Goeke agrees 20 percent would be a problem, he thinks the chances of a leak reaching the aquifer are very minimal.
“It can’t get down to the water table because of the nature of the sediments in the unsaturated zone,” he said.
Goeke likens pipelines to the fear of flying.

The only area of concern regarding water pollution, according to Goeke, occurs where the pipeline will have to be pulled under the Platte River and through the 12-mile-wide valley, where the water table is high or near the earth’s surface.

But experts like you haven't I guessed realized that 1 mile of pipe contains less than 700 barrels of oil.
Each mile of pipe has 16 monitors to detect leaks.

But again experts like you haven't shown any proof though...Goeke who has lived on the Ogallala Aquifer for over 30 years... I think has just a little more expertise!

Keystone has a lousy safety record.
PROVE it! ONLY your statement? GEEZ that's like me saying "YOU ARE A LIAR" and without you putting up any substantiation, or links... YOU made that statement up!
GET some proof! That's the major problem with people like you! You make dumb ass unsupported statements and then other dumb asses repeat YOUR statements as FACTS! GET real proof of that statement!

Already posted it.


Keystone is just a tax dodge that plays Americans for fools.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.

You got it right and that's rare on this board.
So where is YOUR proof that the above statements are FACTS? See dummies like you repeat statements made by others and then people offer that as facts???
Now dummies like you have NO idea what FTZs work or their values.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS!!!
FTZs are designed to stimulate economic growth and development. In an expanding global market, countries increasingly compete for capital, industry, and jobs, and FTZs promote American competitiveness by encouraging companies to maintain and expand their U.S. operations. The zones accomplish this by removing certain disincentives associated with operating in the U.S.

BUT you and other idiots like Biden are NOT answering the point of this thread... Biden's closure of Keystone now
means Canada HAS to ship that oil via 1 million barrel tankers on the open ocean and you think Exxon Valdez with 45,000 barrels was terrible and is still affecting the environment today... WAIT!
 
If the pipeline was bad for Americans, Chinacrats would support it.

It's really that simple. Anything that helps America is opposed by the Chinacrats
 
FACTS folks!!!
One potential impact of Joe Biden’s presidency: more oil tankers off Victoria.
You won’t see him having to fight his way through a phalanx of protesters waving inflatable whales, though, not like Justin Trudeau in James Bay.
The extra Trans Mountain traffic would be added to the thousands of commercial vessels that pass through our waters each year. They include the oil tankers that Victorians already see in the distance, roughly one of them a day, carrying crude from Alaska, Russia and elsewhere to Washington state’s five Puget Sound refineries, four of which are within 60 kilometres of Greater Victoria.


In fact, according to The Wall Street Journal,
“The Obama State Department found five separate times that the pipeline would have no material impact on greenhouse gas emissions since crude would still be extracted.
Shipping bitumen by rail or tanker would result in 28% to 42% higher CO2 emissions and more leaks.” The oil will keep coming, but if the pipeline is not built, it will arrive on much less carbon-efficient tankers, releasing more greenhouse gases.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.

You got it right and that's rare on this board.

He's not wrong but he doesn't quite have it right. In Oct last year, the last month they have data for, we imported over 122 million barrel of oil from Canada. It was President Obama who made the deal that US companies could start exporting oil again. Nothing President Biden did is going to stop that. The oil, or tar sand oil from Alberta will still be shipped to the gulf coast refineries.

 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?
.
I lived through the Exxon Valdez. There is no other way to move oil out of Valdez but for ships.

OTOH I also lived through the building of the Alyeska pipeline.
Environmentalists screamed!
My favorite complaint was, 'It'll kill the wild animals', yet the moose and caribou actually found refuge under the parts of the pipeline that were above ground.

As for the XL pipeline, the oil will now be moved by trains.
Who owns the trains?
Warren Buffett




fwiw - I didn't read this thread - just the OP.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

By attacking the Keystone pipeline, Xi's man significantly and dramatically lowers domestic energy production. This shifts dependence back to foreign oil, particularly Russia, Iran, and Venezuela - three countries closely aligned with the democrat party who have been decimated by the resurgence of American energy independence.

Beijing Biden took action to repay the three sponsor nations for years of support they have provided to him and to the democrat party.

Biden is working to make OPEC great again.

That is about the dumbest damn post I have ever seen. Did the United States annex Canada and I missed it? And I got news for you, that oil that was going to flow through that pipeline has never been intended for the US. Well yeah, the oil was suppose to go the US refineries,, to be processed in to diesel fuel TO EXPORT Meanwhile, the redirection of that oil, from refineries in the Mid-west that do not have access to ports to export their products, to refineries in the Gulf, that do, would result in an increase in gas prices for US consumers. Hell, Transcanada sells oil to those Midwest refineries at a three dollar a barrel discount. It is right there in their business plan, Keystone will eliminate that three dollar discount.

I mean who gives a shit about the environmental risk of Keystone. It takes a bonafide full-fledged flippin IDIOT to support Canada pipelining directly to the Gulf some of the nastiest forms of oil known to man. Send it here so it can be processed here and then sent off to some foreign country. They get the fuel, diesel prices drop in India, and CHINA, and we get stuck with the toxic waste and toxic fumes created while processing that nasty shit. Canada gets more money for their oil. Canada wins. China wins. India wins. And we get stuck with a big fat shit sandwich. You retards need to pull your heads out of your asses, learn something about the oil market, gas prices, hell maybe even understand that Canada has not even hit capacity on the currently existing pipelines. They want to use that nasty ass shit to process in to diesel fuel for China and India they can build their own damn refineries.

Keystone XL Will Increase Gas Prices: Explained | The Nation

The fact is we are doing that already. The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline. They were use to processing heavy crude from Venezuela anyway. The refining industry is booming, naturally. Also, a lot of Americans work in those Canadian oil fields.
So if the oil is being shipped through other sections, why stop Keystone? OH right... because this might happen!
1/2 acre where Keystone leaked less than 1,000 barrels almost all recovered.
View attachment 449258

For the record I'm for finishing this leg of the pipeline. We import millions of barrels of oil from Canada per month and it is the most efficient way to transport the oil.

Did you not even bother to read my initial post in this thread? And I am quite sure you ignored the link. That oil is not destined for Americans. We get the waste products, the fumes, and take all the environmental risk, not to mention the Midwest loses their three dollar a barrel discount. China, India, and European countries get cheaper diesel fuel. The only thing that makes Americans is SUCKERS. What happened to America first? Or was that just a scam all along.

I did. Scam all along. Like I said when I responded to you. " The oil or bitumen slurry, is being shipped across the border on railcars, then sent to the gulf coast and other refineries through the completed section of the pipeline."

Shipping it across the border on railcars is more dangerous to the environment than through a pipeline.

That makes no sense. If Canada was able to ship that nasty shit to the Gulf Coast they wouldn't need the Keystone pipeline. If they were already getting it there there would be no need for the three dollar a barrel discount that they are giving us now. I am not arguing that some of that nasty shit is being transported by rail. But to actually take the position that the oil is coming anyway, at the same volume, by rail or by pipeline, is ignorant. Bottom line, within the very proposal from TransCanada for the pipeline the primary purpose listed is an increase in the price of the oil they send to the United States of three dollars a barrel. That, in and of itself, should be reason enough to deny them that pipeline. I mean you yahoos don't know jackshit about economics.


It's not a question of if. Yes, they want to ship more.

The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014.

The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day.


Well I don't give two shits what Canada wants. America first, right? Tell me, if the pipeline is built Americans pay more for gas, take on the environmental risk of pipeline leaks, the environmental damage of the refining process, and the only positive is a few thousand temporary jobs, how is that America first? Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel, period. Refineries begin ramping up their production capabilities almost ten years ago in expectation. Margins on diesel for export are twice that of gasoline for domestic consumption, it takes a fool to believe that Keystone would lower gasoline prices.

And what dumbass nation exports diesel? That makes no damn sense. It is a critical commodity that impacts the cost of almost everything else. Remember when diesel was cheaper than gasoline? Why you think it costs more now? EXPORTS. And how much more do you pay for everything from produce to cars because of the higher cost of diesel. America first my damn ass. Wake up. By the way, the United States is the world's biggest exporter of diesel fuel, helluva stupid.
NOT one link! "Keystone has been about nothing but exporting diesel,"
Please you make statements but NO proof!
From your subjective, personal, amateur statement, I take it that the Keystone pipeline was going to contain refined, "diesel" fuel in all the 1,700 miles of pipeline. That's the interpretation of your personal observation.
Now I am by no means a "diesel" fuel expert such as you, did a quick internet search you know, the way intelligent people back up their statements? I didn't find anything that declared the US was the world's biggest exporter.
Please provide proof OK??? Not your personal opinion!

Refined Petroleum Oil Exports by Country 2019 (worldstopexports.com)

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | NRDC

Pay attention. Canada wants the Keystone Pipeline to run oil to the Gulf refineries. Those refineries are in free trade zones and can refine the oil into to diesel and export it out of the country WITHOUT EVEN PAYING TAXES. I mean we get shit every which way but loose. America First? I don't think so. Thank goodness Biden put America first and canceled the damn thing.

You got it right and that's rare on this board.

He's not wrong but he doesn't quite have it right. In Oct last year, the last month they have data for, we imported over 122 million barrel of oil from Canada. It was President Obama who made the deal that US companies could start exporting oil again. Nothing President Biden did is going to stop that. The oil, or tar sand oil from Alberta will still be shipped to the gulf coast refineries.


From what I read he knew Canada would continue the deep discount and continue shipping to the Free Trade Zone.
 
I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.


So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?



That's very easy.

Water.

Nothing living on this planet can live without it.

We don't have that pipeline and have no benefit from it yet so we won't be losing anything.

Only those who invested in it will lose.

That pipeline is allowed to cross The Ogallala Aquifer, America's largest aquifer.

Which is located in what is called "America's Bread Basket." Millions of farms depend on that water. Millions of Americans depend on that water.

It is beyond stupid to allow that pipeline to come anywhere near that aquifer. Especially since it's not even tar sand from America. It's tar sand from Canada. Let Canada put their environment at risk. Oh yeah, Canada won't do that.

The fact that you even have to ask is insulting to every intelligent person on this board.

Do you know how many pipelines already cross the Ogallala? Producing oil wells?



Yes I do.

Why add another one?

This isn't regular oil. It's tar sand and it's from Canada.

Tar sand is much more toxic than regular oil and much harder to clean up if spilled.

It's not even our tar sand. It's Canada's. Let them put their environment at risk. Not ours.

We don't need that pipeline. I'm glad that Biden stopped it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top