Tar Sands pipeline

[Riot]

Should the United States give permission for Transcanada to build it's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Should the United States give permission for Transcanada to build it's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas?

Abso-f**king-lutely.

Originally Posted by Riot

Should the United States give permission for Transcanada to build it's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas?

Yes but with that idiot in office it's not going to happen.

[dellinger63]

Obama could simply require US workers be used to dig and maintain the pipeline and use the new badly needed 'jobs' excuse to get the enviro whackos off his case. The refineries in Texas will also need to expand and hire and that would be for as long as the canucks pump oil. The best part is they and not the US taxpayer pays for it. Maybe we too can lay a pipeline on top since the hole will be dug anyway and start harvesting our own oil in N.Dakota.

As a side benefit we fight terrorism by starving the terrorist countries of US and Canadian oil dollars.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Obama could simply require US workers be used to dig and maintain the pipeline and use the new badly needed 'jobs' excuse to get the enviro whackos off his case. The refineries in Texas will also need to expand and hire and that would be for as long as the canucks pump oil. The best part is they and not the US taxpayer pays for it. Maybe we too can lay a pipeline on top since the hole will be dug anyway and start harvesting our own oil in N.Dakota.

As a side benefit we fight terrorism by starving the terrorist countries of US and Canadian oil dollars.

In addition to labor, he can require that all materials used to build the pipeline are domestic. It is nothing new to the construction industry, but he can take credit it for it as his idea.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

In addition to labor, he can require that all materials used to build the pipeline are domestic. It is nothing new to the construction industry, but he can take credit it for it as his idea.

So basically he has all his talking points for his speech on the 8th.

"We will build the pipline to reduce reliance on foriegn oil (clapping). This will produce jobs that will help the economy (Clapping). Thank you and have a good evening."

[Danzig]

jms. dont forget to squeeze 'its going to take time' in there somewhere. i think its a requirement that obama say that phrase each time he is in front of a mic.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yes but with that idiot in office it's not going to happen.

The fear is that it readily will.

[Danzig]

i did some reading on the alaska pipeline, as i figured that would be a valid comparison..based on what i read, the concerns voiced, the steps taken before and during building, the lack of negative environmental impact, and the fact that the pipeline has proved to be the best way to move all that petroleum, i see no reason to reject the building of this proposed project. according to the post article i read, canada will be extracting the oil regardless of mode of transport. a pipeline would be a better way to move that product than any alternative form of transport. state dept has already done its study, i think we should do it.

[clyde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgxYUR1uTMA

What's wrong with laying some pipe?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i did some reading on the alaska pipeline, as i figured that would be a valid comparison..

It's not. It's a completely different type of oil being discussed here. Far more corrosive to the pipe, different to get out of the ground (far more destructive to the environment), far higher carbon costs, different refining, etc.

That's kind of the whole point - that this is something entirely different than normal.

The "negative environmental impact" statement is only about "what is the environmental impact of digging a hole and putting pipe into it" - not about transporting the tar sand oil, etc.

according to the post article i read, canada will be extracting the oil regardless of mode of transport.

It's not Canada, it's a private company. Canada has already denied them building a pipeline to their west or east coast. The only way the project continues is for the US to give the private company a pipeline. If the US says no, the project is shut down.

[Danzig]

yes, i know its a different form of crude and a different process. what that has to do with the pipeline i dont know. i said its a good comparison because much like trans alaska, they have to ensure a good mode of transport with minimal environmental impact. and of course a puipeline has far less impact than a ton of truck or rail traffic. and did you really want to rebuke me for using 'canada' when you did the same??? how silly. yes, it is a company doing the extracting, in canada.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i know its a different form of crude and a different process. what that has to do with the pipeline i dont know.

I posted some links: tar sand oil is extremely corrosive and the likelihood of regular oil pipeline as they are trying to install not failing under this type of oil being put into it is small to non-existent. This is a new experiment, and too many say it is doomed to fail.

This is an extremely important concern with this pipeline. This is one of the reasons Canada will not allow them to install a pipeline in Canada.

i said its a good comparison because much like trans alaska, they have to ensure a good mode of transport with minimal environmental impact. and of course a puipeline has far less impact than a ton of truck or rail traffic. and did you really want to rebuke me for using 'canada' when you did the same??? how silly. yes, it is a company doing the extracting, in canada.

I used TransCanada when speaking of the pipeline, and Canada when speaking of the country. Two different things. Canada has denied TransCanada permission to build a pipeline to either of their coasts, due to environmental concerns as a great part of it.

The environmental impact import here has to do with the extreme environmental cost of destroying the forests to obtain the tar sand oil, the extremely high polluting cost of both that and of refining it, and the extreme impact on climate change.

The environment cost of a gallon of this oil becoming gasoline has been likened to a Prius using gas like a Hummer. It's far more impact than regular oil.

Then, of course, the great risk of transporting it across the main water source for the middle of this country.

The protests in Washington in front of the White House regarding this, ongoing since August 20, have been the largest public protests there since the Viet Nam war, with hundreds of arrests, including the highest-ranking climate scientist in NASA. Yet it's received hardly any media attention.

And with the decision by the Obama administration today regarding the EPA, thousands are planning on descending upon Washington in coming days.

Anybody who thinks we have a "liberally-biased media" in this country isn't paying attention.

Obviously people will make their own decisions about this pipeline. But it's not a usual oil pipeline as has been done before, nor is it usual oil process to obtain the oil. It's interesting that both Libertarians and Liberals are joining together to oppose this, including the Republican Governor of Nebraska. Here's lots of information about the environmental impact, the danger to our water supply, etc. Here, and more links at bottom of page.
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/201...aska-sandhills

[Danzig]

the protesters mean nothing to me. if canada cleared their end, and it looks like state has cleared this end, build it.

[Riot]

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

Is there a way we could possibly stick you in this pipeline should it come to fruition?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

Is there a way we could possibly stick you in this pipeline should it come to fruition?

[clyde]

Ah 'ub 'oo, sweetie!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

i figure its cleared since i read that theyve already extracted oil. im limited right now on finding out much...but enviros wouldnt be considered such if they werent up in arms~doesnt mean theyre right.