Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On May 7, the Keystone tar sands pipeline provided yet another warning when it spilled approximately 21,000 gallons of crude in North Dakota. This is its eleventh and most significant spill.
What the 21,000 gallon Keystone spill tells us about the safety of tar sands diluted bitumen pipelines
You were saying?
Add up all the pipeline spills and compare those to the total spills from the other transport methods and get back to me.
I thought you progs were all about science and numbers you must know that one data point is not enough to support a conclusion.
Issue Brief 23 | Pipelines Are Safest For Transportation Of Oil And Gas
The oil is going to be transported anyway so why are you against the safest method of delivering it?
So are you saying spills are good? Or small spills or good? Confusing message.
The oil will be moved to the gulf to be refined and then put on the world market to be shipped overseas.
Really..........tell me how many jobs are going to be created by this pipeline?
I've got news for you..........it's a hell of a lot less (and a hell of a lot shorter) than jobs that would be created by fixing the infrastructure of this country.
The EPA has shown that there is no negative environmental impact from the pipeline.
Given that and knowing that pipelines are perhaps the safest way to transport oil resulting in less spillage than rail, truck or ship why do you sheep have a problem with it?
By definition ALL construction jobs are temporary aren't they? So I guess we shouldn't ever build anything because none of those construction jobs are permanent.
Tell me does your ass get jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth?
Anything that disrupts the natural existing environment
is going to have a longterm impact.
If you look at the destruction caused by the oil industry in general --
from Ogoniland/Biafra in Nigeria, the Valdez spill, BP in the Gulf, etc. --
there is not enough check on corporations and oil and related interests
to ensure the full cost to the public and environment is
included in the profits and responsibilities.
Can you really blame citizens concerned for the environment
for not trusting the constant collusion between oil interests
and corporate financiers and politicans influencing and pushing policies?
These objections may not be letter-perfect arguments,
but the sentiment behind them is valide: the protest of lack of accountability
for unequal corporate influences on govt and the public, where
collective power and resources are too easily abused
to override equal protections, consent, and due process for redressing grievances
for which the public and environment is left absorbing the consequences and costs.
This should be addressed if we are going to make sound policies
and hold corporations accountable for side effects or collateral damages,
deliberate or unintentional, whether these are proven in advance or the risks ignored.
There should be an agreement first to pay the additional costs as needed
to resolve objections and meet the concerns, instead of overriding them as invalid.
If it is TRUE there is "no risk of impact to the environment"
where is the agreement to guarantee in writing to cover those costs IN FULL
if they should occur (instead of "assuming the assertions are correct as studied"),
and agree in advance what those costs could be? When BP signed agreements
with the federal govt for damages in the Gulf disaster, they capped the
damages to a maximum amount that does not guarantee it can cover all the cleanup, impact, and repercussions on the indigenous wildlife and ecosystem over the longterm,
since that has never been determined and may take years to restore and measure.
The environmental impact and killing off of species in Alaska is still not back to normal,
and there was not enough money paid to restore the economic burdens locally.
How is this distrust of corporations and politicians with conflicts of interest
NOT a valid factor in making decisions that affect the public and environment?
Really..........tell me how many jobs are going to be created by this pipeline?
I've got news for you..........it's a hell of a lot less (and a hell of a lot shorter) than jobs that would be created by fixing the infrastructure of this country.
Incidentally, the jobs created by fixing the roads and the bridges of this nation can't be outsourced, and they will provide sustainable jobs for the populace.
Me? I prefer fixing the roads and bridges (which incidentally helps those who have a lot of money in their corporations ship their products over the entire country).
At least then, we know that the labor involved stays with this country. Shipping oil sands (after the U.S. refines it) overseas isn't really developing the job market.
There will be a few thousand short term jobs to get the pipeline operational.
Then there will be some hundreds full time to maintain it.
The oil will be moved to the gulf to be refined and then put on the world market to be shipped overseas.
Probably the greatest number of jobs it will generate is when people are hired to clean up oil spills.
So what are the benefits?
Exports don't help the economy?
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Canadian oil is an import, not an export.
Really..........tell me how many jobs are going to be created by this pipeline?
I've got news for you..........it's a hell of a lot less (and a hell of a lot shorter) than jobs that would be created by fixing the infrastructure of this country.
Incidentally, the jobs created by fixing the roads and the bridges of this nation can't be outsourced, and they will provide sustainable jobs for the populace.
Me? I prefer fixing the roads and bridges (which incidentally helps those who have a lot of money in their corporations ship their products over the entire country).
At least then, we know that the labor involved stays with this country. Shipping oil sands (after the U.S. refines it) overseas isn't really developing the job market.
It doesn't matter how many will be created. There will be mos likely hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs that will provide gainful employment and tax revenues while also transporting oil that is going to be transported anyway in the safest manner possible.
If we ramp up refining capacity won't that create more jobs here in the states?
So let me ask is there a set number of jobs (permanent) that need to be met before you will put your stamp of approval on any project?
Really..........tell me how many jobs are going to be created by this pipeline?
I've got news for you..........it's a hell of a lot less (and a hell of a lot shorter) than jobs that would be created by fixing the infrastructure of this country.
Incidentally, the jobs created by fixing the roads and the bridges of this nation can't be outsourced, and they will provide sustainable jobs for the populace.
Me? I prefer fixing the roads and bridges (which incidentally helps those who have a lot of money in their corporations ship their products over the entire country).
At least then, we know that the labor involved stays with this country. Shipping oil sands (after the U.S. refines it) overseas isn't really developing the job market.
It doesn't matter how many will be created. There will be mos likely hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs that will provide gainful employment and tax revenues while also transporting oil that is going to be transported anyway in the safest manner possible.
If we ramp up refining capacity won't that create more jobs here in the states?
So let me ask is there a set number of jobs (permanent) that need to be met before you will put your stamp of approval on any project?
Really? Can you provide a reliable source of information that states we will create hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in the U.S.?
Sorry..................but the amount of jobs created by this debacle will only number in the hundreds.
I'm also wondering why they need to span so many miles of the Ogallala Aquifer.
Sorry, but I think that those who are part of this project need to shut it down and go home.
Nope.............sorry..........but I (as well as many others who are closer to the land than I am) think that the Keystone Pipeline needs to be shut down.
We can do better (and more efficient power generation) with wind.
Really..........tell me how many jobs are going to be created by this pipeline?
I've got news for you..........it's a hell of a lot less (and a hell of a lot shorter) than jobs that would be created by fixing the infrastructure of this country.
Incidentally, the jobs created by fixing the roads and the bridges of this nation can't be outsourced, and they will provide sustainable jobs for the populace.
Me? I prefer fixing the roads and bridges (which incidentally helps those who have a lot of money in their corporations ship their products over the entire country).
At least then, we know that the labor involved stays with this country. Shipping oil sands (after the U.S. refines it) overseas isn't really developing the job market.
It doesn't matter how many will be created. There will be mos likely hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs that will provide gainful employment and tax revenues while also transporting oil that is going to be transported anyway in the safest manner possible.
If we ramp up refining capacity won't that create more jobs here in the states?
So let me ask is there a set number of jobs (permanent) that need to be met before you will put your stamp of approval on any project?
Really? Can you provide a reliable source of information that states we will create hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in the U.S.?
Sorry..................but the amount of jobs created by this debacle will only number in the hundreds.
I'm also wondering why they need to span so many miles of the Ogallala Aquifer.
Sorry, but I think that those who are part of this project need to shut it down and go home.
Nope.............sorry..........but I (as well as many others who are closer to the land than I am) think that the Keystone Pipeline needs to be shut down.
We can do better (and more efficient power generation) with wind.
There will be a few thousand short term jobs to get the pipeline operational.
Then there will be some hundreds full time to maintain it.
The oil will be moved to the gulf to be refined and then put on the world market to be shipped overseas.
Probably the greatest number of jobs it will generate is when people are hired to clean up oil spills.
So what are the benefits?
1. Oil shipments by rail have increased 40 times in the last year over the previous year not taking into account shipments by truck. Likelihood of rail accidents are far more dangerous and difficult to control than pipeline leaks which are entirely manageable.
A single accident by rail can result in the destruction of an entire town like happened in east Canada a few months back. A leak in a pipeline will immediately be pushed to the surface and can be contained there within hours, likely with no loss of life or major destruction, not even a smidgeon.
2. The cost to ship oil by rail is between $9 and $18 more than transferring by pipeline putting the shale oil production of Canada in jeopardy. Because of that increase the Canadian government is forced to subsidize it or promote the constructions of a pipeline to the west Pacific coast. It has become a huge part of the Canadian heavy industry economy, and if we want good relations with Canada we would allow the oil to pass through the US to the Gulf instead.
3. If it goes to the Pacific it directly enters world markets there and to China the world's largest oil importer. If it goes through the continental US it makes China more reliant on us than Canada and strengthens our relationship with Canada.
4. This oil, although it enters the world market when it leaves the Gulf, is at any time available for our capture making us less reliant on Middle Eastern Oil.
5. The LARGEST ever release of oil from the emergency oil reserve was 30-mil barrels in toto. In the most recent year the US consumed 18.5-mil barrels (world wide 84.5-mil b.)and this is short term limited release is all we can now do to affect the price of oil in world markets. The passage of oil and its shipment from our shores gives us much greater leverage on the world supply of oil and therefore the world price of oil.
6. The major cause of volatile prices of oil in the US (aside from problems in the Middle East) is bottlenecks in the pipelines to refineries. The Keystone would would not only transport oil from Canada and the N. US fields, but allow the reversal of oil from south to north when surpluses build up at the Gulf. This would stabilize the price of oil in the continental US.
7. The cost of transferring oil from North Dakota and states to the west (Montana), and south (Wyoming and Nebraska) would be reduced by the pipeline, translating to reduced oil prices in the US regardless of Canadian oil.
8. The Oglala Aquifer is "The depth of the water below the surface of the land ranges from almost 400 feet in parts of the north (Nebraska where the pipeline to cross) to between 100 and 200 feet throughout much of the south (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado) which explains why the study by the State Department saw little to no risk of damage to Oglala.
9. New pipeline infrastructure is essential to transfer liquid petroleum and the proposed pipeline is a vital and essential segment of the whole system into the future.
10. It would be to the strategic advantage of the US to manifestly dominate the flow of oil to the rest of the world from North America and the Keystone help enable that.
Many examples here of the "religion" of environmentalism. It is totally futile to try to justify industrial development with facts to these zealots. They don't care about jobs - good lord, none of them would be caught dead doing a job where you might get your hands dirty or break a nail.
The idea of "wind power" makes them feel good, so they really don't want to be bothered with the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time, and can't be depended on to produce baseload power. Electric cars make them feel good too, so don't remind them that the juice that's powering that car was generated by burning COAL.
They are horrified of nuclear power, but when you point out that not a single person on the U.S. has ever died from radiation at a nuclear power plant, you might as well be humming "the flight of the bumble bee," for all the difference it will make.
Fuck it. Not worth the trouble. Might as well try to convince Jimmy Swaggart that Jesus was a fag.
