So let me get this pipeline shit straight

[Intense]

I haven't forgotten. But there is a slight difference for your few miles a week driven to my hundreds and hundreds. You do the math. It would help both of us but in my case it could save me hundreds of dollars a month. That's half of a possible new laborers salary or money for my retirement or money to invest. There have been weeks where I have had to spend over 300 per week on fuel to function. When gas was at 4 bucks a gallon I would often opt for hotel rooms to save money. And I'm just a small business. Translate those possible savings to a company with a fleet or a company like FedEx.

They Keystone XL project would likely have increased the cost of gas in the US.

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Intense]

Dems believe that unemployment stimulates the economy.

True story

Are you really this stupid?

Sure it does. So do Food Stamps. So does Deficit Spending. Let's Party.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Smoke and mirrors.

No.

 

[WillowTree]

I haven't forgotten. But there is a slight difference for your few miles a week driven to my hundreds and hundreds. You do the math. It would help both of us but in my case it could save me hundreds of dollars a month. That's half of a possible new laborers salary or money for my retirement or money to invest. There have been weeks where I have had to spend over 300 per week on fuel to function. When gas was at 4 bucks a gallon I would often opt for hotel rooms to save money. And I'm just a small business. Translate those possible savings to a company with a fleet or a company like FedEx.

They Keystone XL project would likely have increased the cost of gas in the US.

dumb dumb dumb

Obviously you don't have anything by which you can refute me, all you can do is resort to name calling. That shows the merit of your position. In fact, it's not "dumb" at all. What would be dumb would be to simply assume that "more oil, prices will lower!" That would indeed be dumb, because there are more factors involved than that. I've explained how those factors would increase pump prices several times. I've explained it here, I've explained it in previous threads. It's all very straight forward and logical. But still, you can't grasp it. So save your "dumb dumb dumb" for yourself.

so, it's your position that since your messiah has nixed this pipeline and 100,000 jobs, that gasoline will not rise in the US? So how do you account for the fact that the price of gasoline is 86% higher now than it was when the dud took office?

 

[Truthmatters]

Willow that jobs number is a lie

 

[WillowTree]

Willow that jobs number is a lie

prove it.

 

[Intense]

Smoke and mirrors.

No.

Yes.

The advantages of the pipeline far outweigh the disadvantages. We are talking about availability of raw precious resource here.

 

[Intense]

Willow that jobs number is a lie

You can't handle the truth. True. The Number is much worse than the claim.

Official Unemployment
13,049.,000


Actual Unemployment
23,282,394

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[Truthmatters]

Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boilermaker55]

Obama says no pipeline because.....

1. He wants to get oil from unstable nations
2. He wants to protect a few thousand lizards who apparently wouldn't understand how to crawl under or over a fucking pipe.
3. He likes gasoline prices at 3 dollars compared to 1.83 when he took office.
4. Apparently some deer are incapable of living on one side of the pipe over the other.
5. We haven't lost enough to China yet.
6. He doesn't want the states involved to make the extra revenue.
7. 20k + jobs is just a laughing stock
8. Wants to save a few sand dunes in Nebraska.
9. Says the gop gave him too short a deadline despite this being in the works and studied for years.
10. God I really despise Obama.

Ps. We have 10's of thousands of miles of pipelines currently in use in this country without major incident. There really is NO EXCUSE for this kind of ineptness.

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg

Let me get this shit right. You didn't really read all of the dynamics of the entire bill did you.
Attaching this rider to a tax cut for middle class workers.

No real environmental impact statement and how it would affect the route it travels.
And the oil companies have such a remarkable record for taking care of the worries about safety and such.
Get that shit right before you put all of us in jeopardy.
To bad you pay $30 life sucks to be you.
The republicans wanted an answer and then wanted it now. So they got it from The President.
There is a solution to every problem. It might not be the one you want but there is a solution.
He gave them his solution.

 

[newpolitics]

I live on the edge of a provincial park now. I have been a conservationist for decades. I've gone primitive for a number of years and trust me, when you pump water by hand you really get a grip on how precious a resource it is.

I've been active in water conservation projects for decades.

What the fuck do you do beside spout off on a message board? Use a blue box? Use only one sheet of toilet paper?

Don't lecture me.

I could care less what you do in your free time. What speaks louder is your defense of the tar-sands. Don't think your lifestyle or supposed profession offers you any credibility in anecdote, because you have just destroyed it in touting your opinion of this situation.

You don't have a clue what you are blathering about. There are serious monitoring systems in place.


Surveillance Monitoring And Research
Alberta Water Research Institute (AWRI)

The Alberta Water Research Institute was established in the spring 2007 to coordinate world-class and leading-edge research to support Alberta's provincial water strategy, Water for Life: A Strategy for Sustainability. Administered through the Alberta Innovates - Energy and Environment Solutions, the Water Institute funds specific research initiatives in support of the Water for Life goals and objectives of:

Safe, secure drinking water supply
Healthy aquatic ecosystems
Reliable, quality water supplies for a sustainable economy

The Water Institute serves as a knowledge broker - providing analysis and context to water research for decision- and policy-makers, and ensuring that the information is understandable, relevant and accessible. Dedicated to seeking the best solutions and ideas, the Water Institute's scope is not limited by geographic boundaries. It seeks out both the best thinkers and the best information provincially, regionally, nationally and internationally to help secure the long-term safety, quality and sustainability of Alberta's water resources.

There are currently substantial eight oil sands-related projects under The Water Institute in various stages of completion. The Water Institute investment over the life of these projects is about $15M. These projects focus on water supply (quantity and quality), accelerated de-watering of oil sands fine tailings, water recycling, water purification, and water management. The Water Institute is also a partner funder of two NSERC Industrial Research Chairs dealing with water and water quality management in the oil sands.
Canadian Water Network (CWN)

Established in 2001 and headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, CWN was created by the NSERC Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Program to connect Canadian and international water researchers with decision-makers engaged in priority water management issues. CWN brings together researchers, engineers and their students, along with practitioners and implementers, pooling their resources and uniting expertise to respond to water challenges and ensure a prosperous and healthy future for generations of Canadians.

The Canadian Water Network catalyzes and supports multidisciplinary research and related initiatives that address key challenges in water management across three programs: (i) protecting Canada's watersheds and ecosystems; (ii) protecting the health of Canadians; and (iii) ensuring that Canada has sustainable water infrastructure.

There are currently two four-year (2008-12) multi-thematic, multi-partner (university; government; industry) oil sands-related studies under CWN dealing with:

Surface and groundwater management in the oil sands industry - focused on providing advanced monitoring tools for risk managers involved with evaluating environmental health related to oil sands mining.
Priority toxic elements (vanadium, antimony and arsenic) - source water protection and drinking water treatment - to assess the distribution, speciation, bioavailability and health effects of antimony and arsenic in Canadian drinking water, and examines the potential for various treatment technologies to remove antimony, arsenic and vanadium in process-affected water from the oil sands.

Carbon Dynamics, Food Web Structure, and Reclamation Strategies in Athabasca Oil Sands Wetlands (CFRAW)

CFRAW is a joint research venture among five Principal Investigators at four Canadian universities (UAlberta; USask; UWaterloo; UWindsor) in collaboration with seven sponsoring partner companies in the oil sands industry. Research under CFRAW is unified by three major themes:

Carbon Dynamics: Tracking materials through the food web - to assess several classes of wetland differing in reclamation type (reference vs. soft-tails amended), age (young vs. older), and organic base (poor vs. rich; vegetative materials vs. hydrocarbon-derived materials).
Biological effects of oil sands process materials (OSPM) - in addition to "metabolic" carbon flow, the parallel transport of constituents of potential concern (PAHs, naphthenic acids, arsenic, selenium, trace metals) through the biota to the wildlife that form the top of the food web is being studied.
Predicting changes and recommending reclamation strategies - to provide fundamental knowledge on the succession and energy flow processes in both natural and constructed wetlands.

Ultimately, research results from the CFRAW Project will provide guidance to industrial partners regarding the most effective reclamation strategies and techniques for developing viable systems and for monitoring their developmental progress and health.
Environment Canada - Oil Sands Monitoring and Research

Environment Canada is the most active federal monitoring and research agency in the oil sands area, driven by various legislative responsibilities, principally enforcement-related monitoring under the Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in addition to surveillance monitoring in support of the Fisheries Act. Much of this activity is partnered with Alberta Environment, other federal/provincial departments, and universities.

This activity is focused on:

tailings pond management and impacts on groundwater and surface water quality;
chemical profiling to distinguish industrial vs. naturally occurring oil sands hydrocarbons;
tailings pond and riverine toxicology (water, sediment);
regional air quality assessment and modelling;
regional water availability and instream flow needs; and
tailings pond enforcement-related inspections.

Research interest on ecological flow needs is shared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment who have recently tabled a science evaluation of instream flow needs for the Lower Athabasca River. In addition, Natural Resources Canada, with partners, is expanding activities as it relates to groundwater geochemistry issues in the oil sands region.
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), through its Discovery and Strategic Grants, funds a multitude of individual oil sands-related research projects at universities across Canada. Through its Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Program, NSERC supports research networks that deal with issues related to oil sands (e.g., the Canadian Water Network). NSERC has also appointed a number of Canada Research Chairs that direct research related to oil sands and oil sands production.
University of Alberta: D. Schindler Laboratory

Dr. David Schindler and his research laboratory and collaborators have been conducting studies related to water quality and ecosystem health on the Athabasca River and other northern basins for several decades. In 2007, he formed an oil sands research group that has been conducting a series of studies assessing the claim of the oil sands industry and Alberta government that toxins in the Athabasca River and its tributaries are from natural seepage from bitumen deposits. Their peer reviewed publications to date (e.g., Kelly et al. 2009 - PNAS 106, Kelly et al. 2010 - PNAS 107, Schindler 2010 - Nature) have raised serious questions regarding the adequacy and credibility of current environmental monitoring programs in the Lower Athabasca system and have identified new concerns regarding the relative importance and potential effects of point- and non-point source oil sands contaminants on regional water resources.
University of Alberta: Centre for Oil Sands Innovation (COSI)

This Centre for Oil Sands Innovation (COSI) was established in 2005 at the University of Alberta, a partnership between Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta. The vision for the centre is to provide the research base to enable oil sands operations with a reduced environmental footprint by minimizing water use, consuming less energy, lowering greenhouse gas and other emissions, and yielding high-quality products at lower cost. COSI aims to achieve this objective by promoting research on oil sands, building research capacities and funding breakthrough research that leads to environmentally and economically sustainable development of Canada's oil sands resources. Since its inception, COSI has grown into a research network that involves four universities, Imperial Oil and government agencies in the quest for breakthrough technologies for the oil sands.

Research programs at the Centre for Oil Sands Innovation are focused on four areas of research with the objective of environmental footprint reduction:

Bitumen and Mineral Fundamentals - research on bitumen composition, molecular behaviour, interfacial interactions between bitumen components and minerals, and behaviour of clays and minerals at oil-water interfaces.
Bitumen Separation and Upgrading - research on new approaches to separation of desirable from undesirable components, reaction of bitumen feeds, catalysis, and production of value-added products.
Environmental Footprint Reduction - development of new methods for the rapid dewatering of tailings.
Extraction - research leading to water-free processing of oil sands, technologies that use a significantly smaller volume of water or allow most of the water to be recycled, and integration between extraction and tailings handling to enable the immediate return of fine solids to the mine.

University of Saskatchewan - Toxicology Centre and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Toxicology

Well-known for its work with northern ecosystems, the Toxicology Centre at the University of Saskatchewan (UofS) became the focus for the Northern Ecosystems Toxicology Initiative (NETI) which was identified as a priority area by the University in 2000. This was reaffirmed in 2007 with the opening of a $12-million expansion that included new labs and analytical equipment. Over the next few years, more than 50 researchers and support staff will join the core group of 14 researchers currently at the Centre.

The Toxicology Centre is the largest toxicology centre in Canada, and has a world-renown eco-toxicology program with interests in both the fates and effects of potentially toxic compounds and elements, particularly in the area of ecological risk assessment. Oil sands-related research includes: research into the movement, bioaccumulation, and effects of toxic substances at different levels of biological organization, ranging from biochemical to ecosystem; extensive research in the areas of metal speciation, multi-species toxicity testing, biochemical indicators of stress in aquatic organisms, fate and effects of PAHs, halogenated hydrocarbons, including chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and -furans, PCBs and pesticides; evaluating the toxicity of oil sands process-affected waters (OSPWs) from oil sands mining activity; examining the potential for degradation and associated reduction in aquatic toxicity of OSPWs in laboratory microcosms, which are used to simulate natural wetland environments; and a related project evaluating the leaching of trace metals from coke, a by-product of bitumen upgrading, and the potential toxicity of this leachate and associated metals to aquatic life.
University of Waterloo

Through a collaborative network of University of Waterloo and external Principal Investigators, considerable research is being undertaken on monitoring contaminant levels (surface and groundwater), fate of contaminants, and effects of contaminants on aquatic organisms in the oil sands region. Current thesis studies include: the effects of oil sands processed material on Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) and blackworms (Lumbriculus variegatus); toxicity assessment of oil sands process-affected water using fish cell lines; the influence of Athabasca oil sands constituents on fish reproduction; seasonal and spatial trends in production and stable isotope signatures of primary producers and utilization by primary consumers in oil sands processed-material wetlands; and photodegradation and microbial degradation of oil sands hydrocarbon contaminants and the utilization of oil sands sources by primary consumers.

Wow. Thanks for that. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the canadian government is trying to cover their own ass to prevent any major liabilities from arising, and mostly, so they can be the first ones to cover up any disasters before anyone else gets word of it.

Inherent in your approach is the arrogance that has to come along with assuming that we, as humans, can prevent the flow of toxicants into natural systems with an operation of this magnitude. Yes, arrogant. You. Your stated credentials do not impress or intimidate me whatsoever, because no amount of expertise can convince me that what is happening isn't immoral and dangerous to humans, animals, and the environment.

This is Canada's cash cow, and as such, they will destroy anyone and anything who threatens it. Indeed, they already have run doctors out who tried to speak up against rising cancer rates among natives living along the Athabasca river. This right there means that nothing is going to stop them from getting that cash. When the government is willing to discredit their own people for a dollar, we are all in trouble.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A]Tar Sands Oil Extraction - The Dirty Truth - YouTube[/ame]

Here is something that is true:

"Tar sands take 3 barrels of water to process every barrel of oil extracted. Ninety percent of this water becomes so toxic that it must be stored in tailing ponds. Unfortunately these ponds regularly leach pollution into the third largest watershed in the world."

 

[Ernie S.]

Keystone Pipeline Rejected, API Slams President's Decision


By Pierre Bertrand: Subscribe to Pierre's RSS feed

January 18, 2012 4:03 PM EST

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerrard, the head of the largest energy industry trade group in the U.S., on Wednesday lambasted President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline

Charging the president caved in to political pressure, Gerrard questioned Obama's commitment to job creation in canceling the 1,700-mile pipeline, a project that would create thousands of new jobs, he said.

"This decision is a clear abdication of presidential leadership," said Gerrard, adding the pipeline is essential to the nation's energy future and security.

Gerrard spoke during a teleconference in response to the administration's decision to reject the controversial pipeline.

In a statement the president released Wednesday explaining his decision to cancel the pipeline, the president blamed Republicans for imposing a deadline -- essentially forcing his hand.

I'm reading cancelled.

That's because you're reading the API press release. Not exactly an unbiased source.

Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - Businessweek

The Nebraska Governor has already said he'd be happy to see TransCanada reroute the pipeline.

And this is phase 3 that's been in the works for 3 years now. I already put up a link to how the environmental issues were handled in depth.

We all know up here that it's an election year and that Obama's playing games. It's a no brainer. Odd that he's picking the enviro whackos versus unions though.

Is Ralph Nader grumbling about a run?
obama can depend on the unions, but if the greenies put up a candidate, he'll loose them unless he kisses some ass.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf



Pipe dreams?
Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost
by the Construction of Keystone XL
a report by cornell university global labor institute

 

[uscitizen]

Smoke and mirrors.

No.

Yes.

The advantages of the pipeline far outweigh the disadvantages. We are talking about availability of raw precious resource here.

Yep some are concerned about their water supply. A bit more precious than oil.

 

[Intense]

No.

Yes.

The advantages of the pipeline far outweigh the disadvantages. We are talking about availability of raw precious resource here.

Yep some are concerned about their water supply. A bit more precious than oil.

Yes water is. Protecting it should be part of the plan.

 

[Ernie S.]

I haven't forgotten. But there is a slight difference for your few miles a week driven to my hundreds and hundreds. You do the math. It would help both of us but in my case it could save me hundreds of dollars a month. That's half of a possible new laborers salary or money for my retirement or money to invest. There have been weeks where I have had to spend over 300 per week on fuel to function. When gas was at 4 bucks a gallon I would often opt for hotel rooms to save money. And I'm just a small business. Translate those possible savings to a company with a fleet or a company like FedEx.

They Keystone XL project would likely have increased the cost of gas in the US.

You keep harping on that. Please explain how an increase of 700,000 barrels/day will cause an increase in the price of oil.

 

[bripat9643]

The pipeline wasn't "cancelled". It was put on hold until TransCanada puts together a new plan.

In other words, it was cancelled. "Putting together a new plan" means starting over from scratch. The plan they put together will be to build the pipeline to Vancouver and then send the oil to China.

 

[Truthmatters]

good

 

[Intense]

good

I knew you were the Manchurian Candidate at heart.

 

[Claudette]

You know, there is ignorance and then there is stupidity. After reading the posts in this thread, I guess you have to deal with complete and total ignorance AND stupidity from Barry and his parrots on the left. Some of the absolute CRAP that I have read here just defines what is wrong with this country at the moment.

The first piece of sheer ridiculousness that I read was the fact that if we build the XL Pipeline, then it will RAISE the price of gas. Huh? Even for the left, who despises the capatalistic and free enterprise system, this is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever heard. Would ANYBODY who KNOWS the oil and gas industry please speak up if you even REMOTELY believe that is the case? (Crickets chirping). It would LOWER the price of gas, some industry experts believe, as much as $1.50 per gallon. It would provide MORE crude to refineries on the Gulf coast and it would be available to the eastern half of the country.

Now here's one that I just love. Well, whether we build the pipeline or not, most of it would go to China. GAWD!!!! Right now there are 30,000 miles of pipelines under the United States. There already is one XL pipeline from Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma. What there isn't and there NEVER has been is a pipeline that goes from the east coast to the west coast carrying crude. Why? A little thing called the Rocky Mountains. You could build one now if you had a pumping station about every other mile. But imagine the cost of that baby. If the XL pipeline is built, the refined product would be on the gulf coast. IF China wants it then they would have to put tankers through the Panama canal OR they would have to traverse around South America. The cost to them would be enormous, but they would pay AND they would pay us. The primary customer of that refined product would be primarily the east coast of the United States. When the pipeline really got going, then I would imagine that it would then be sold to the Europeans. It would be nice to have the French sucking at our teet for once.

I really like this one. Well, the oil from the tar sands in Alberta is "dirty" oil. Really? And have you ever been around a barrel of oil that comes out of the ground? You can't use it for anything. It has to be refined stupid. After you refine it, then you get gasoline, diesel, machine oil, etc. After refining, there isn't one bit of difference between the gasoline refined from Texas crude, Kansas heavy, or Alberta tar. Good God people, use your freakin brains.

Why if you build the XL Pipeline, then it will completely destroy the environment. Oh my God. There are 30,000 miles of pipeline (carrying crude and refined products) under this country right NOW. In Nebraska where the tree-huggers are so fired up about this lizard, there are pipelines that go right through that area. If people knew how close they lived to a pipeline that runs under their feet, they would be amazed. And most of them just keep working without a hitch.

Oh, and let's not forget the energy independence, the affect it would have on our national security, the ability to pump some of it into the National Petroleum Reserve domes in Texas AND the simple fact that Barry wouldn't have to bow to Saudi Sheiks anymore (although I secretly think he would).

If you don't know anything about oil and gas, then just say so. When you open your mouth and you parrot the stupidity of organizations like "Friends of the Earth" or other 'progressive' people, to those of us who are in that industry, you just look stupid AND ignorant.

Great post Sniperman.

I'm sure you noticed none of the rabid lefties on this board want to address your common sense post??

I'm not surprised. Are you??