Thank God Obabble approved the keystone pipeline

[Pogo]

Sen. Manchin imitates Letterman...

Bipartisan Pitch: Top 10 Reasons to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
March 28, 2014 – "“We have everything to gain" by building the Keystone XL pipeline -- and "there is no reason why the United States should pass up this opportunity, " Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, told a press conference on Wednesday.

The West Virginia senator and two Republicans announced a joint effort with other domestic energy advocates to finally get the federal government to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to “secure America’s economic and national security.” Sens. Manchin and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) -- along with Vets4Energy Adviser Rear Adm. Don Loren, American Petroleum Institute President/CEO Jack Gerard, Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer and Executive Vice President of TransCanada Alex Pourbaix -- offered their Top-10 reasons the pipeline should be approved.

(10) The American people support the Keystone XL pipeline by a margin of three to one.

(9) The State Department’s final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) released at the end of January showed no significant environmental impact.

(8) The (State Dept.’s Inspector General’s) report cleared and found no conflict of interest by contractor conducting review.

(7) Keystone XL needed infrastructure; we’re seeing more congestion and accidents around the country that have occurred by trying to move crude by rail.

(6) The situation in Europe -- Russia’s influence/strength relative to Ukraine and EU is energy.

MORE

PLUS...
Which should MOST people be in favor of:
A) 700 barrels of oil in one mile of pipe on dry land with 16 monitors per mile of the 1,179 mile route.. OR one monitor every 100 yards and
Keystone XL will use satellite technology to monitor 20,000 data points on the pipeline’s operating conditions. -
Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

OR
B) transporting 1 million barrels PER MILE in a Tanker on the open ocean and in doing so exposing 11,000 square miles of ocean to pollution (Exxon Valdez anyone?).

Way to not get the point.

All the pipeline does is facilitate the oil industry's ability to supply Houston refineries -- which are conveniently located (who knew) on the water where that product can be loaded onto ships to China and India. Doesn't make a drop-in-the-bucket difference to the gas pump in Iowa.

Feel used yet?

Oil isn't really a simple supply-and-demand equation anyway; it's fungible. So pouring in more supply does not --especially with OPEC around-- create a rising tide that lifts all boats. What it does create is more profit for Big Oil - because it got its government partner to cut its costs for that product going to China. Where the action is.

How 'bout now?

 

[S.J.]

Conservatives in this thread have said that the Keystone XL pipeline doesn't create jobs, it just moves Canadian oil through America to be sold on the open market to China.

So who benefits from the Keystone XL pipeline if it won't create jobs or lower the price of energy for struggling American families?

So I take it you would prefer 1 million barrels of oil on the open ocean like Exxon Valdez??

What is the problem with math deficient people.
Which is a bigger number exposed to potential spill??
1 million barrels traveling one mile in a oil tanker on the open ocean OR
700 barrels traveling one mile in a pipeline on dry land with spill monitors every 100 yards?

OH yea that's right you've probably also feel CORE math is valid also!

No, I would prefer that oil stays deep underground where God put it because it is toxic poison that kills everything that it touches.

I know that right-wingers can't imagine a better world. You think that you know that oil is the greatest fucking thing ever and it runs our world economy and industries. That's a lie. Transportation fuel can be made cheaply, safely and abundantly from Cannabis plants and seeds. There is a wealth of information on this subject, even from the US Federal government and major universities. I can post a wall of links to international government and university studies which all say that removing global impediments to Cannabis production will drastically alter the energy policies of the entire planet.

Domestic production of transportation fuel is possible in every country, in every state, in every county and township through mass production of industrial hemp.

Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/cannabis-carbon-footprint.pdf
http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/5d_Environmental_Risks_and_Opportunities_in_Cannabis_Cultivation.pdf
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59909/676695681.pdf?...1
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1868648
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2856430&fileOId=2857088
Effect of harvest date on combustion related fuel properties of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) - Fuel - Tom 102, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/EvergreenEnergy/kforbin.pdf
Industrial Hemp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=93&ved=0CC0QFjACOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumboldt-dspace.calstate.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2148%2F1461%2FArnold_Jessica_M_Sp2013-r.pdf%3Fsequence%3D4&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNGePT2nLRH82rx6h817DYxZ6v-J3A&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=91&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAAOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.kmi.open.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F2778292.pdf&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFqhjiy8F4VRqHnZ08t7CZFDqLgXQ

You think cars are the only thing we use oil for?

A partial list of products made from petroleum

 

[healthmyths]

Sen. Manchin imitates Letterman...

Bipartisan Pitch: Top 10 Reasons to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
March 28, 2014 – "“We have everything to gain" by building the Keystone XL pipeline -- and "there is no reason why the United States should pass up this opportunity, " Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, told a press conference on Wednesday.

PLUS...
Which should MOST people be in favor of:
A) 700 barrels of oil in one mile of pipe on dry land with 16 monitors per mile of the 1,179 mile route.. OR one monitor every 100 yards and
Keystone XL will use satellite technology to monitor 20,000 data points on the pipeline’s operating conditions. -
Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

OR
B) transporting 1 million barrels PER MILE in a Tanker on the open ocean and in doing so exposing 11,000 square miles of ocean to pollution (Exxon Valdez anyone?).

Way to not get the point.

All the pipeline does is facilitate the oil industry's ability to supply Houston refineries -- which are conveniently located (who knew) on the water where that product can be loaded onto ships to China and India. Doesn't make a drop-in-the-bucket difference to the gas pump in Iowa.

Feel used yet?

Oil isn't really a simple supply-and-demand equation anyway; it's fungible. So pouring in more supply does not --especially with OPEC around-- create a rising tide that lifts all boats. What it does create is more profit for Big Oil - because it got its government partner to cut its costs for that product going to China. Where the action is.

How 'bout now?

Who in the hell is talking about fungibility???
I'm simply pointing out that Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil a day either in a 1 million barrel tanker via the ocean or 800,000 via 1,179 mile pipeline
on dry land. And compared to a tanker 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the ocean is considerable more risky then 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a
pipeline on dry land!
What is wrong with comprehending this simple number?
Which one is bigger?? 1 million barrels in a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile on the ocean or 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
WHICH IS BIGGER?
Which would destroy more ecology.. 1 million barrels traveling over 100,000 square miles of ocean or 700 barrels in one mile of a a pipeline that along with 50,000 miles of pipelines in the USA?

Which is the bigger number? How come you haven't addressed that?
Everything else is meaningless until you comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a bigger number then 700 barrels traveling one mile!
MY goodness your grade school educators are a failure if a simple concept where 1 million barrels is a bigger number then 700 barrels!

crisscrossing the USA

 

[Pogo]

PLUS...
Which should MOST people be in favor of:
A) 700 barrels of oil in one mile of pipe on dry land with 16 monitors per mile of the 1,179 mile route.. OR one monitor every 100 yards and
Keystone XL will use satellite technology to monitor 20,000 data points on the pipeline’s operating conditions. -
Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

OR
B) transporting 1 million barrels PER MILE in a Tanker on the open ocean and in doing so exposing 11,000 square miles of ocean to pollution (Exxon Valdez anyone?).

Way to not get the point.

All the pipeline does is facilitate the oil industry's ability to supply Houston refineries -- which are conveniently located (who knew) on the water where that product can be loaded onto ships to China and India. Doesn't make a drop-in-the-bucket difference to the gas pump in Iowa.

Feel used yet?

Oil isn't really a simple supply-and-demand equation anyway; it's fungible. So pouring in more supply does not --especially with OPEC around-- create a rising tide that lifts all boats. What it does create is more profit for Big Oil - because it got its government partner to cut its costs for that product going to China. Where the action is.

How 'bout now?

Who in the hell is talking about fungibility???
I'm simply pointing out that Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil a day either in a 1 million barrel tanker via the ocean or 800,000 via 1,179 mile pipeline
on dry land. And compared to a tanker 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the ocean is considerable more risky then 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a
pipeline on dry land!
What is wrong with comprehending this simple number?
Which one is bigger?? 1 million barrels in a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile on the ocean or 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
WHICH IS BIGGER?
Which would destroy more ecology.. 1 million barrels traveling over 100,000 square miles of ocean or 700 barrels in one mile of a a pipeline that along with 50,000 miles of pipelines in the USA?

Which is the bigger number? How come you haven't addressed that?
Everything else is meaningless until you comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a bigger number then 700 barrels traveling one mile!
MY goodness your grade school educators are a failure if a simple concept where 1 million barrels is a bigger number then 700 barrels!

crisscrossing the USA

There's a pipeline to China?

My post wasn't about ecological concerns (that's why it leads off with "way to not get the point"), but the fact remains that oil gets onto a tanker either way.

 

[Pogo]

How does the Keystone XL pipeline make America energy independent?

It doesn’t. It does, however, provide a cheaper, safer and better method of moving Canadian oil to market. A market that is based in part by supply. That oil is GOING to go to market, period. That is a cold hard fact. It can get their dangerously though other nations enriching them OR it can come through here enriching us AND be environmentally safer.

That really is not the point though, is it? Even though it is better for the environment for us to take care of this project Obama and the eco morons continue to block it without reason. Tons of environmental studies have cleared this as the SAFEST manner in which to get this oil to market. It creates jobs and productivity. And where is the pipeline now? Sitting in limbo for asinine political reasons that have nothing to do with safety or productivity.

Fucking sick.

Pray, how does acting as middleman for stuff going to China "enrich us"? We create a couple of jobs looking for leaks? That's it? Let's face it, as Lord Protector of the Pipeline our role is analagous to that of the mule who's paid a nominal fee to transport cocaine up his ass so that somebody else can ultimately profit from it.

For that matter, how is Canada's getting its raw material to market our problem?

I notice that you have to bring in your favorite boogeyman though – the Koch brothers – even though they have absolutely nothing to do with this asinine situation.

They're symbolic. Hey, they worked hard to get where they are, let 'em have the notoriety they deserve.

 

[tyroneweaver]

How does the Keystone XL pipeline make America energy independent?

It doesn't. All it does is bankroll the snot out of the Kroch's and other big oil cronies to make a more economical way to get oil to China.

aren't you suppose to be inline some where signing up for obamacare

 

[Black_Label]

How does the Keystone XL pipeline make America energy independent?

It doesn't. All it does is bankroll the snot out of the Kroch's and other big oil cronies to make a more economical way to get oil to China.

aren't you suppose to be inline some where signing up for obamacare

Already signed up Aren't you late for your klan, I mean teabagger meeting?

 

[FA_Q2]

How does the Keystone XL pipeline make America energy independent?

It doesn’t. It does, however, provide a cheaper, safer and better method of moving Canadian oil to market. A market that is based in part by supply. That oil is GOING to go to market, period. That is a cold hard fact. It can get their dangerously though other nations enriching them OR it can come through here enriching us AND be environmentally safer.

That really is not the point though, is it? Even though it is better for the environment for us to take care of this project Obama and the eco morons continue to block it without reason. Tons of environmental studies have cleared this as the SAFEST manner in which to get this oil to market. It creates jobs and productivity. And where is the pipeline now? Sitting in limbo for asinine political reasons that have nothing to do with safety or productivity.

Fucking sick.

Pray, how does acting as middleman for stuff going to China "enrich us"? We create a couple of jobs looking for leaks? That's it? Let's face it, as Lord Protector of the Pipeline our role is analagous to that of the mule who's paid a nominal fee to transport cocaine up his ass so that somebody else can ultimately profit from it.

For that matter, how is Canada's getting its raw material to market our problem?

I notice that you have to bring in your favorite boogeyman though – the Koch brothers – even though they have absolutely nothing to do with this asinine situation.

They're symbolic. Hey, they worked hard to get where they are, let 'em have the notoriety they deserve.

How? That is painfully obvious – do you think that the refining process for that fuel is free? Do you think that the refineries that will be refining that product have no employees?

How does being the middle man in the delivery of goods like UPS enrich them at all? Because that service is paid for. That fuel can be refined and shipped using American workers and American facilities or it can be done with Chinese. I would think that using our workers and facilities would be an easy choice considering they are safer, pay better and bring vale to the America rather than China.

The ONLY reason that the left has EVER been able to furnish for not approving the pipeline so far has been environmental. Considering that there environmental impact is POSITIVE (as in all other forms of transportation have a larger impact on the environment), what is the reason to stop the project?

 

[idb]

PLUS...
Which should MOST people be in favor of:
A) 700 barrels of oil in one mile of pipe on dry land with 16 monitors per mile of the 1,179 mile route.. OR one monitor every 100 yards and
Keystone XL will use satellite technology to monitor 20,000 data points on the pipeline’s operating conditions. -
Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

OR
B) transporting 1 million barrels PER MILE in a Tanker on the open ocean and in doing so exposing 11,000 square miles of ocean to pollution (Exxon Valdez anyone?).

Way to not get the point.

All the pipeline does is facilitate the oil industry's ability to supply Houston refineries -- which are conveniently located (who knew) on the water where that product can be loaded onto ships to China and India. Doesn't make a drop-in-the-bucket difference to the gas pump in Iowa.

Feel used yet?

Oil isn't really a simple supply-and-demand equation anyway; it's fungible. So pouring in more supply does not --especially with OPEC around-- create a rising tide that lifts all boats. What it does create is more profit for Big Oil - because it got its government partner to cut its costs for that product going to China. Where the action is.

How 'bout now?

Who in the hell is talking about fungibility???
I'm simply pointing out that Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil a day either in a 1 million barrel tanker via the ocean or 800,000 via 1,179 mile pipeline
on dry land. And compared to a tanker 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the ocean is considerable more risky then 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a
pipeline on dry land!
What is wrong with comprehending this simple number?
Which one is bigger?? 1 million barrels in a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile on the ocean or 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
WHICH IS BIGGER?
Which would destroy more ecology.. 1 million barrels traveling over 100,000 square miles of ocean or 700 barrels in one mile of a a pipeline that along with 50,000 miles of pipelines in the USA?

Which is the bigger number? How come you haven't addressed that?
Everything else is meaningless until you comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a bigger number then 700 barrels traveling one mile!
MY goodness your grade school educators are a failure if a simple concept where 1 million barrels is a bigger number then 700 barrels!

crisscrossing the USA

What happens when it gets to the end of the pipeline...does it stop there?
No shipping will be involved?

 

[FA_Q2]

Way to not get the point.

All the pipeline does is facilitate the oil industry's ability to supply Houston refineries -- which are conveniently located (who knew) on the water where that product can be loaded onto ships to China and India. Doesn't make a drop-in-the-bucket difference to the gas pump in Iowa.

Feel used yet?

Oil isn't really a simple supply-and-demand equation anyway; it's fungible. So pouring in more supply does not --especially with OPEC around-- create a rising tide that lifts all boats. What it does create is more profit for Big Oil - because it got its government partner to cut its costs for that product going to China. Where the action is.

How 'bout now?

Who in the hell is talking about fungibility???
I'm simply pointing out that Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil a day either in a 1 million barrel tanker via the ocean or 800,000 via 1,179 mile pipeline
on dry land. And compared to a tanker 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the ocean is considerable more risky then 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a
pipeline on dry land!
What is wrong with comprehending this simple number?
Which one is bigger?? 1 million barrels in a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile on the ocean or 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
WHICH IS BIGGER?
Which would destroy more ecology.. 1 million barrels traveling over 100,000 square miles of ocean or 700 barrels in one mile of a a pipeline that along with 50,000 miles of pipelines in the USA?

Which is the bigger number? How come you haven't addressed that?
Everything else is meaningless until you comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a bigger number then 700 barrels traveling one mile!
MY goodness your grade school educators are a failure if a simple concept where 1 million barrels is a bigger number then 700 barrels!

crisscrossing the USA

What happens when it gets to the end of the pipeline...does it stop there?
No shipping will be involved?

You do realize that the place it is refined is irrelevant to whether or not it is going to be shipped again. IOW, if it is shipped to a refinery in China it still may get shipped AGAIN to the final destination.

 

[idb]

Who in the hell is talking about fungibility???
I'm simply pointing out that Canada will ship 1 million barrels of oil a day either in a 1 million barrel tanker via the ocean or 800,000 via 1,179 mile pipeline
on dry land. And compared to a tanker 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the ocean is considerable more risky then 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a
pipeline on dry land!
What is wrong with comprehending this simple number?
Which one is bigger?? 1 million barrels in a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile on the ocean or 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
WHICH IS BIGGER?
Which would destroy more ecology.. 1 million barrels traveling over 100,000 square miles of ocean or 700 barrels in one mile of a a pipeline that along with 50,000 miles of pipelines in the USA?

Which is the bigger number? How come you haven't addressed that?
Everything else is meaningless until you comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a bigger number then 700 barrels traveling one mile!
MY goodness your grade school educators are a failure if a simple concept where 1 million barrels is a bigger number then 700 barrels!

crisscrossing the USA

What happens when it gets to the end of the pipeline...does it stop there?
No shipping will be involved?

You do realize that the place it is refined is irrelevant to whether or not it is going to be shipped again. IOW, if it is shipped to a refinery in China it still may get shipped AGAIN to the final destination.

Yep, that was kind of my point.

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left wants us all to go back to living like cave dwelling creatures.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn’t. It does, however, provide a cheaper, safer and better method of moving Canadian oil to market. A market that is based in part by supply. That oil is GOING to go to market, period. That is a cold hard fact. It can get their dangerously though other nations enriching them OR it can come through here enriching us AND be environmentally safer.

That really is not the point though, is it? Even though it is better for the environment for us to take care of this project Obama and the eco morons continue to block it without reason. Tons of environmental studies have cleared this as the SAFEST manner in which to get this oil to market. It creates jobs and productivity. And where is the pipeline now? Sitting in limbo for asinine political reasons that have nothing to do with safety or productivity.

Fucking sick.

Pray, how does acting as middleman for stuff going to China "enrich us"? We create a couple of jobs looking for leaks? That's it? Let's face it, as Lord Protector of the Pipeline our role is analagous to that of the mule who's paid a nominal fee to transport cocaine up his ass so that somebody else can ultimately profit from it.

For that matter, how is Canada's getting its raw material to market our problem?

I notice that you have to bring in your favorite boogeyman though – the Koch brothers – even though they have absolutely nothing to do with this asinine situation.

They're symbolic. Hey, they worked hard to get where they are, let 'em have the notoriety they deserve.

How? That is painfully obvious – do you think that the refining process for that fuel is free? Do you think that the refineries that will be refining that product have no employees?

Those refineries aren't sitting there idle waiting for product. Their employees are already there working. Nothing changes for them. All that is affected is XYZ Oil gets a quicker, easier way to get Canadian crude to Houston, which cuts their costs, which improves their profit. The refiners simply continue working as they are now. What do we the people get out of it? Nothing.

How does being the middle man in the delivery of goods like UPS enrich them at all? Because that service is paid for. That fuel can be refined and shipped using American workers and American facilities or it can be done with Chinese. I would think that using our workers and facilities would be an easy choice considering they are safer, pay better and bring vale to the America rather than China.

Oh no, you did not just compare an oil pipeline to UPS??

Oh I wish I could ship stuff through a pipeline. I'd clean up.

Again, refineries operate at or near full capacity already-- this won't be filling some void. The difference is which raw product they're refining and how much it cost the oil company to get it there. But that has no effect on their employment. They're already there, pipeline or no pipeline.

The ONLY reason that the left has EVER been able to furnish for not approving the pipeline so far has been environmental. Considering that there environmental impact is POSITIVE (as in all other forms of transportation have a larger impact on the environment), what is the reason to stop the project?

I wouldn't know-- that's not my issue. I'm sure there are environmental concerns but my point is taking issue with this bullshit fallacy that this pipeline somehow brings fuel to Dubuque or has anything on earth to do with 'self-sufficiency' as the OP suggests. Would that the oil bidness worked that way; it doesn't. I'll keep saying this until the 22nd century or however long it takes but "we" don't drill for oil; oil companies drill for oil, and their allegiance is to their shareholders, not a country, so they're going to put that oil where it brings the most profit.

As for the other argument, the "pipeline will create jobs", that's true, it will create a few jobs building it and then some minimal maintenance jobs keeping after leaks. That's it. The purpose of this thing is to ameliorate Big Oil's overhead. And they sell it as a "public benefit" snake oil, pun intended, as usual. That fallacy is what I'm here to shoot down.