 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:42 PM The jury is out on whether Obama will approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline shipping tar sands oil from Alberta to the refineries in the Gulf Coast. If he approves such a devastating project for the environment, his presidential legacy will be irrevocably tarnished. James Hanson, scientist and environmentalist specialist says that if it happens, it's "Game Over". You can expect a climate crisis. Obama has the authority to approve or disapprove. While the Washington D.C. demonstration headed by Bill McKibben of 350.org drew 40,000 people, Obama was playing golf with an oil merchant. What does this portend if anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:18 PM ...a devastating project for the environment... Well having seen TAP, I didn't notice ANY adverse effects on the environment. These pipelines just sit there they don't do anything. The only observed effect of TAP is that ants use it as a superhighway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:29 PM Absolutely he will!..He's been a phony. Two years ago, on Mudcat, I said he would, and have maintained it all long. First, I believe we'll see an uprising in Jordan, then Saudi Arabia. The fraudulently inflated gas prices will cause the people to either demand it, or welcome it....and Obama will be seen as a 'hero'..but it's all been bullshit from day one! GfS P.S....and the liberals who have been stuck in 'ideologue-dom' will scratch their heads, and wonder if he is the Democratic version of Bush. Why not?..He's working for the same puppet masters....and nobody can do a damn thing about it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:36 PM Please, no. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:42 PM Are there not already pipelines crisscrossing North America - I know that are several in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:49 PM Mrrzy: "Please, no." Sadly there has been so MUCH fraud foisted upon us all, in the name of Party politics, it is indeed staggering. He will HAVE to (or so it would 'appear')...and when it happens, remember a few other 'unpopular' things I've posted, that seemingly went against the grain, of those who THOUGHT they were even liberal in the first place! GfS P.S. TWO YEARS AGO!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:58 PM We can all sit around and wet our pants like Guest From Same old shit or get on the White House website and let him know what you think about it. This administration has been very sensitive to electronic feedback. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 21 Feb 13 - 03:27 PM I live just up the road from Saint John, New Brunswick so I hope it's a no. Fact is, a pipeline is gonna get built. If it ain't to the US, and it ain't to Canada East, the Chinese will het rich. >;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM He might if he gets some serious concessions from the Republicans but they would have to very serious concessions... I mean, let's get real here... The pipeline leaves the US at risk while not guaranteeing US one drop of oil... Seems like a bad deal for US... It would be a bad deal even if we were guaranteed a portion of the oil... The winners here: China, Canada and the folks who lease out their land for the pipeline... Everyone else??? Losers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:04 AM Bobert: "The pipeline leaves the US at risk while not guaranteeing US one drop of oil... Seems like a bad deal for US..." Bobert, You are waking up!! You are absolutely right on! 'Hope and Change'.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 08:54 AM The decision will likely be made in June--or so I read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM I've always been right on Keystone, GfinS... This has been my position going back as long as this pipeline has been an issue... BTW, it is a given that this pipeline will leak sometime and somewhere and this shale oil is the dirtiest of oil so when it does leak it is going to effect the ground water in those areas... It's a terrible deal... Here's the thing that bothers me the most about letting the Koch brothers, Dick Cheney and their buddies write energy policy... When we do have the "big one" - a catastrophe so large that no one ever imagined - then what??? Who's going to pay for the clean up and for the expense of moving perhaps an entire region out of a disaster zone??? The Koch brothers??? Big Oil??? No, it will end up on me and you... Think Katrina and multiply by perhaps a 1000... Think this can't happen??? It not only can but more than likely will happen at some point in time if Keystone is built... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:39 PM Good article but long read. Probably no point linking it. However . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:54 PM Pipelines are about the safest way of transporting oil. Of the top ten oil spills only one have been due to a pipeline spill and that was with a poorly maintained pipeline in Nigeria. If they don't build a pipeline, then the oil will be shipped by road and sea; both of which carry a greater risk of spillage. Most of the pollution from oil comes from exhaust pipes and chimneys. If you wish to cut back on pollution, cut back on using your vehicle and your heating and your electricity. If you want to minimize the risk of spillage, unfortunately a pipeline is the way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:19 PM Keystone/TransCanada have already said that it expects 11 significant leaks over the first 50 years... Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have crunched the numbers and say the number will be 9 times that... That means 2 major oil spills every year... As for pipelines being safe??? An Exxon/Mobile pipeline developed a leak and it spilled 40,000 gallons of crude into the Yellowstone River in Montana... Montana is one thing... Kansas City, Mo. and Oklahoma City are quite another... A major spill in or around either might result in those cities having to be evacuated... As for driving less??? The way I see it is that the US would have to out-bid the Chinese for the first drop of this oil... Good luck... If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water??? Where am I wrong here, Bert??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:44 PM "... lease out their land..." Not in Canada. Westerly... that got effectively nixed. Long story. I assume the easterly option is a bargaining chip. Whether it's used in USA or China or both. This is just about anywhere ya wanna look.... The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60' geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters. We have an agency that handles pipeline safety – the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). They should be making the assessment of the safety of diluted bitumen pipelines a priority. The brief operating history of the Keystone pipeline provides more evidence that our conventional pipeline design regulations are inadequate for pipelines moving corrosive raw tar sands, or diluted bitumen, at high pressure. After all, the company claims that Keystone I was built with "state of the art" design features and was predicted to spill no more than once every seven years. We're now at twelve leaks in less than a year of operation. Most troubling of all is that fact that after all of these warnings, State Department is still fast tracking the environmental review of Keystone XL – a project that would build the largest raw tar sand pipeline in the world through the Ogallala Aquifer – before our pipeline safety regulators evaluate and address the risks of diluted bitumen pipelines. Given what we already know, blindly rushing the construction of a raw tar sands pipeline through the largest source of ground water in the United States is folly. The findings of a formal investigation by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) of the 21,000 gallon Keystone leak provided yet more evidence that safety regulations for conventional pipelines are inadequate for high pressure raw tar sands pipelines. The report found that the pipeline failure was not due to "any material or manufacturing deficiency" and that the "chemical compositions, mechanical properties and microstructure" met minimum design requirements for conventional pipelines. The report went on to state that the work required to prevent similar failures included 1) using stronger, thicker materials and 2) installing engineered pipe supports. In other words, conventional pipeline standards aren't good enough for this pipeline. TransCanada has spun these spills as a great opportunity to show how well their leak detection system works. While it's true that Keystone operators have had a lot of experience dealing with spills over the last year, there are some discrepancies in the company's account of its leak detection record. After Keystone's 21,000 gallon spill in North Dakota, TransCanada claimed that the pipeline was shut down nine minutes after the leak occurred. However, the PSC investigation revealed that the leak occurred at 3:51 AM and the pipeline was not shut down until 4:35 AM – which makes for a pipeline shut down time of forty-four minutes. And that was with the help of a third party, as the investigation notes that Keystone operators were still validating the leak detection data when a local landowner called to report that a spill was visible above the treeline. The State Department doesn't seem to be taking these concerns seriously. Despite Keystone I's short and troubled history, the State Department included some spill projections for Keystone XL in its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) that border on the ridiculous. For instance, the State Department predicts that 1,980 mile Keystone XL pipeline will have a leak due to flooding and washout once every 87,800 years. In another unprecedented prediction, it expects an incident on the pipeline due to corrosion once every 3,400 years. This can't be the scientific examination of the dangers presented by Keystone XL that President Obama promised. The fact that the State Department believed that these estimates, or any methodology that would produce these estimates, were credible enough to include in a SDEIS indicates how little attention and expertise they're bringing to the environmental review process. It also suggests that our pipeline safety regulators are not paying attention to the environmental review process or the potential risks posed by Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline has serious risks which deserve serious consideration. The State Department should not be fast tracking this project before the pipeline safety regulators at the Department of Transportation have the chance to take a close look at the safety issues of diluted bitumen. And the Department of Transportation needs to engage in this before we build a disaster prone pipeline through the Ogallala Aquifer – Secretary LaHood claims that pipeline safety is a priority for his Department. Doing basic due diligence on tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL would be a good place to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:01 PM Modern oil pipelines have check valves and automatic shut-off mechanisms. Even if a terrorist blows a hole in a working pipeline, only the anount of oil between between valves can escape, and pumps are automatically turned off. Emergency alerts go out by radio to repair crews who are dispatched almost immediatley. As Bert said, the proposed pipeline is the safest way possible. If we (US) don't allow this oil to come here, the Canadians will be forced to construct a very expensive, destructive and dangerous line to the West Coast, and the oill wil go to China. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM "If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water???" Bobert, if the US doesn't want the oil it will go to China. Thing is, we are fighting the pipeline. You should be, too. You don't want it in the US, fine. Tell your government. Those of us who don't want it in Canada are telling ours. Enough of this bullshit. You sure as fuck don't mind Canadian electricity and you didn't give a shit what it did to the James Bay area. But poor old USA might have a damaged pipeline and all of a sudden it's the Bad Canadians? Fawk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:33 PM Bobert, you are right that the spillage rate is far too great. There is no need for any well designed pipeline to leak and, except for terrorist attacks and plane crashes I don't think that any leak is acceptable. But still, of the worst ten spills ever, only only is from a pipeline and that was a poorly maintained line in a third world country. Even with current spillage rates a pipeline is safer than a tanker. If a pipeline is designed and built to American Standards there is absolutely no reason for it to leak. One of the reasons for poor quality manufacturing is the use of non union labor. When I was a Boilermaker, welders had to have a five year apprenticeship and needed to pass a rigorous test before they could work on high pressure pipes and vessels. Employers try to cut costs by using cheaper labor and materials. The current trend of union bashing has reduced manufacturing quality throughout the country to the level of that in third world countries. We have the choice as a country to either improve manufacturing quality or to change American Standards to reflect current manufacturing techniques. American Standards were developed when America had good quality workmanship available, this is no longer true now that manufacturers are using the cheapest labor that they can find. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:10 PM I'm doing what I can down here, Brucie... I have written several letters to the newspaper and written my Congress people and if I hear of a major demonstration I'll be there, too... Here's another idea: Why doesn't Canada build refineries closer to these wells??? It's crazy to pump that much raw material that is so dirty... Refine it there and use it there... Back to who gets the oil... If the US want's some at the end of the pipeline then it has to bid against China for it... That's okay... What isn't okay is for the US to gamble the safety of its water supply just to get an opportunity to bid on Canadian oil... That's messed up... As for valves being shut down??? Yeah, they can be, pdq... If you do the math and you had a spill of what is held in even one mile of pipe that is enough oil to shut down a city like Kansas City... What??? You gonna put a valve every 100 feet??? Even at 100 feet you are dealing with 1000's of gallons of dirty oil... No thanks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: kendall Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:29 PM Fracking is worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:32 PM ..Oh, and I forgot..one of the promises included that we would not drill much here..the cover story was given to 'environmental issues'..but that was NEVER the truth..but it was 'given' to the 'liberal left environmentalists..so they could 'claim a 'victory and ally' in Carter and his administration. So now the 'so-called' left gets 'new concessions'...The environmental issue as raised by Bobert, and many others, will be a 'talking point argument' used, but that would only be used to maintain the illusion that it was ever a 'concern'. Just for public consumption. Meanwhile, the 'right' blames the 'left' and so on and so forth..back and forth...and the banks laugh all their way through the capital! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:34 PM Hmmm...my prior post disappeared..too bad! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:35 PM Fracking is frackin' stupid... Here we are told that the next big war will be fought over water so what do we do??? Take perfectly good clean water, mix a bunch of secret chemicals into it and pump it down in the ground where the rest of the good clean water is??? This is dumber than leech treatments... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:38 PM Here's my 'prior post'..Bobert, you may(?) like this! 999: "If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water???" Linking up to the existing lines, down the Great Plains would be easier, cheaper, and more safe that going west over the Rockies. there is a mutual benefit for all parties concerned to save the costs.and time. Just like: As I posted before, Henry Kissinger, in 1979, under the Carter Administration made a trade agreement with Saudi Arabia, that if they would buy or Treasury bonds, we would buy their oil. Saudi Arabia, happens to be one of our nation's largest debt holders (2nd or 3rd, I think). I am believing that much of the Mid-East war problems, are being allowed, and/or 'sponsored', to bring the region into an untenable, unreliable source of our oil..THEREFORE...next logical choice..drill here, and blow off the debt owed to the 'soon to be Defunct' Saudi Regime, to whom the promises were made. I think Jordan will see problems first, though. ...and who wins?..The oil corporations and the banks, to whom the money is owed. Where does the oil go?..To China, the other big holder of debt...along with, believe this or not, Mexico. Now this is what I posted about two years ago..and every day that goes by, I see it taking shape.... ...and Bobert, if this is true...it really IS both parties..owned by the folks, that you've been NOT blaming....for corrupting both parties. GfS P.S. Mudcat Forum, by the way, has been doing some of the hottest exchanges and stuff, on the web..in regards to this and a couple other subjects...wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get even more notoriety. 'Viva El Mudcat!' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:00 PM "If a pipeline is designed and built to American Standards there is absolutely no reason for it to leak." Canuck Standards are equal or better. On damn near every page. The NBC and CSA are more stringent and we require a minimum of the US equivalent codes to ensure materials and methods at least meet US standards just as a "cover yer ass". We also got ISO up the ass. "Why doesn't Canada build refineries closer to these wells???" $ Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:12 PM One problem is, GFinS, is that the proposed pipeline doesn't exactly run thru the great plains... It runs on the eastern edge where there are lots of major cities... I pointed out Kansas City for one since my parents used to live there and I know it fairly well... It ain't a one-light hick town... A major spill there would make Katrina look like a pleasant day at the beach... As for the "Both Side Shuffle"??? BS... 100% of Republicans are for the pipeline... Maybe 10% of the Dems... If that ain't proof that your off key then nothing will... You remind me of a band-mate who used to always insist he was in tune when he wasn't... This was before everyone had electric tuners... Me thinks that every time you play the "Both Side Shuffle" yer a little flatter than the last time... BTW, no one wants to weigh in on why Canada doesn't build a refinery and ship out usable product rather than nasty, dirty raw material??? Something very messed up here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:30 PM Yes, I know..not exactly the 'Great Plains', but flat land as opposed to going over the Rockies. When I first typed it, I typed 'plains'..but changed it to 'Great Plains' right before I hit 'Submit Message'..you are correct. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:39 PM I weighed in at 5:00 PM. It just don't make sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:42 PM As I understand it, the Keystone pipeline runs over the Oglala aquifer. A huge amount of American agriculture—the food we eat—depends on the water pumped up from the aquifer for irrigation. An oil spill there would be a disaster of major proportions. Bobert has the right of it. ". . . why Canada doesn't build a refinery and ship out usable product rather than nasty, dirty raw material?" Among other measures, there are lots of petitions out there to be signed. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:10 PM You are right in many things Bobert. Also, why can't the USA build a refinery at the border? You could probably get major support from the representatives from the State where the pipeline enters the USA. North Dakota, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:18 PM Here's another fact to chew on... I have heard people who know what they are talking about saying that the world is 2 lousy inches of top soil away from starving... It's bad enough to risk water but to risk water and top soil is, ahhhhh.... ...very short sighted and downright stupid... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:25 PM Frac away boys! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:26 PM Some of you are idealistic enough to think we are going to have any say in this. I'm too friggin' old or jaded to believe that anymore. I think it's a done deal--was when that Cheney was up at the oil sands with Harper. A refinery is a multi-lotsa money project. We have refineries in Edmonton, a place just north of Edmonton the name of which I've forgot, Calgary, Norman Wells, I think Red Deer and likely other places of which I'm not aware. But refineries are setup to handle certain grades of oil. I guess they can't handle it. For those pissed of at Canada, stop driving your fucking cars, SUVs, pickups so much and it will be less of a problem. Cut back on your electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, electric can openers, air conditioners--but you all know this and have no intent to do that. Goddamn spare me. You are a greedy nation in terms of your energy needs. Pressure your damned politicians, all you can, and stop bitchin' at us. We've been fucked over more by the USA than we ever fucked the USA over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:30 PM Refinery. Once again... third time. That just don't make $ sense. The physical distribution analysis just don't add up in $$$. How ya gonna get it to market? Ya gonna fill Super Bees with gas in Alberta and drive em ta Texas? Nuh uh. Besides.... it's simple engineering. Big spill problem... build something that will NOT leak. It ain't rocket science... it's political science. Even *I* could design it and I am just a Silly Engineer (major earthquakes, asteroids and other bitches of nature void in this offer). The problem is the spineless politicians that will not.... VERY SIMPLY... require the oil industry to do it right. I still say there is GONNA be a pipeline. Whose backyard it ends up in is up to big oil... $$$ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:42 PM I don't see this as a done deal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:43 PM The oil will go to refineries that are already built in Texas and maybe Louisiana. Many of them are running below capacity due to the Obama moritorium on oil drilling in the Gulf. These folks are probably good union boys who have families to take care of. The oil from tar sands in Alberta is supposed to be pretty ugly stuff, but US refineries still pay market price for Venezuela crude that has about 7% gasoline and is as thick as mud. High quality Texas crude is over 30% gasoline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:53 PM North America pipelines map |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:02 PM ". . . stop driving your fucking cars, SUVs, pickups so much and it will be less of a problem. Cut back on your electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, electric can openers, air conditioners—" We own a 14 year old Toyota Corolla whose gas tank we fill with an eye-dropper, with about 31,000 miles on the clock, no SUVs or pickups. My wife's and my toothbrushes are of the hand-cranked variety, Barbara dries her hair with a towel, I don't have much hair to dry, we don't own an electric can opener, again using the hand-cranked variety, we don't own an air conditioner—" Most of our friends are the kind of folks who walk a lot or take the bus, some of them own Toyota Priuses (hybrids), and one just bought a Smart Car. You plug it in. About the only thing that would tax the system even less would be a pair of roller skates. Vote NO on the Keystone pipeline. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:05 PM There have been more off shore permits under Obama in the last 4 years than there were under the last 4 years of the Bush administration, pdq... Your bangin' on Obama ain't the issue here... What is at issue is the safety of the nation and not making Dick Cheney, or you, happy... I've brought up Kansas City because it's the largest city that the oil will get to... You have talked about these "valves" that will minimize any spill... I asked you if you were prepared to advocate a valve every mile??? No answer... Do you have any idea what 40,000, 50,000, maybe 100,000 gallons of this stuff would do to Kansas City??? It would shut it down... It would be like a horror movie... The water supply would be history... It's ability to treat sewage would be history... Kansas City would, in essence, be history... This can happen and I predict right here and now that if this pipeline is built something along this ***will*** happen... There's almost no way it can't... And the further south you go the more and more population centers will be at risk... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:05 PM If the shoe don't fit don't wear it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:13 PM Yes, as Don has pointed out, we have the technology to get beyond the Big Oil model for our lives which are all about Big $$$ for Big Oil... Screw Big Oil!!! The same people who want the pipeline hate: ...alternative energy sources... ...renewables.... ...energy efficient cars... ...mass transit... ...urban planning that promotes less use of energy... I mean, let's get real here... There is a pattern here of all the same old, same old rich white people wanting to run the show and risk the health of the country, it's people and its future... These are the Koch brothers and the Dick Cheneys and the Halliburtons... I'm tired of being ***ruled*** by stupid old white men... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:30 PM Frac away, boys, enjoy! Fifty years to so-called "clean energy". The U.S. is covered by a network of old, tired pipelines leading to the Gulf coast and the major refineries. The Keystone will lead to the closure of some of these. A diversion away from the Ogalalla and the Sand Hills, approved by Nebraska. Portions of the Keystone are already up and carrying. The bitumen sands of Alberta-Saskatchewan hold an estimated 60 years of U.S. oil needs. The Kearl mega-billion project starts moving product next year, regardless of Keystone completion. http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/operations_sands. This is just one of the new projects going online. If not to the U.S., to the Pacific and China. The Keystone Project is the logical solution for the U.S. and the industrial growth of the States. Otherwise surrender to China, India, South Korea and Indonesia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:47 PM Or read what I lasted posted... Old thinking, Q, old thinking... Like last century... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:17 AM All those who think Obama will not sign off on it, raise your hands. All those who think a true liberal would NEVER approve it, raise your hands.... ...then think about it. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Songwronger Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:38 AM The Republicans will make him approve it because he's a black man. We all know that's what it comes down to. They're racist and they make him do things like this. And if you think he's a tool of investment capital, then you're racist too. You can't frame any discussion about Obama in any other terms. If you do, you're racist. So get this topic back on track. "Will Obama approve the XL pipeline because Republicans are Racist?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:57 AM Thanks for the map Bobad. How many of those pipelines leak? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: kendall Date: 23 Feb 13 - 06:33 AM It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest. That's us folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:54 AM Well said, Capt'n... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 11:53 AM ..over your heads........ GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM All of the ineffectual breast-beating does not change the fact that coal and petroleum needs by industry and the people will continue to be filled by bitumen mining and liquid petroleum production for at least 50 years in the future, and will continue long after that for many needs. Energy is just part of the picture; everything from take-out containers to airplanes and wheeled-transport use plastics derived in part from bitumen and petroleum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:12 PM No breast beating, Q... Just askin' for sanity... The pipeliners haven't thought this thing thru... Running this stuff right thru major population centers and thru the drinking water supply for the entire middle of the country is insane... This entire pipeline is just another political proxy war by the Obama Hate Brigade, the Koch brothers, Dick Armey, the Tea Party, etc... There is no reason on Earth why we can't turn this over to a large group of scientists, environmentalists, planners and the best minds available to see if this thing makes any sense... On the surface, it doesn't... Like I have asked two or three times now... Why not build a refinery where the stuff is so that Canada is shipping out usable product??? Huh??? What's this big hurry to do something which will more than likely be looked back upon as one of the largest engineering boondoggles of all time??? But seems that the pipeliners won't answer my questions which to me means that they haven't really thought this thing thru other than using it to poke at Obama??? That's stupid policy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:21 PM Q makes valid points (as usual). I especially like the point referring to "old, tired pipelines". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:44 PM You ask a legitimate question Bobert, one I have asked myself. This article provides some answers to the question: Should Canada refine its own oilsands bitumen? Some excerpts: "Oil refining is a volatile, low-margin business, they say, and it's far cheaper and much simpler to export crude to countries that already have refineries ready and willing to process it, particularly the United States and China. "It gets a lot of points to say, 'We've got to do things at home, we've got to be independent, we ought to not depend on somebody who could change their mind,' but as an economic matter, it doesn't really make sense, or we would have been doing it," says Michal Moore, a professor at the University of Calgary's public policy school. "My guess is that under current circumstances ... that ship probably has sailed." **************************************************************************************** "Building a new refinery would be a long and expensive proposition. Such a facility would cost billions of dollars and likely take a decade to obtain the necessary government approvals and build, says Moore." *************************************************************************************** It's more complicated to export refined products, rather than simply exporting raw crude, because every jurisdiction has different standards for fuels to meet, says Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "Most refineries usually refine close to their market because of the gasoline and fuel specifications in each of those areas," says Stringham. "So that's why it leans to, let's move the crude around." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:55 PM It's going to be 74o F in Houston today. Below zero in southern Canada tonight. Which place would you rather live or work if you carried a wrench and worked outside in a refinery? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 23 Feb 13 - 02:07 PM "Which place would you rather live or work if you carried a wrench and worked outside in a refinery?" Since you asked I'd rather be in a country that has universal, tax payer funded health care and fewer gun toting psychos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:03 PM "Raw" or "Refined," the product still has to be moved and that is what pipelines do. Major pipelines aleady criss-cross North America; all are equipped with shut-off valves to prevent major leaks. Refining is directed at particular needs; the great variety of refineries for chemical and energy needs are on the Gulf Coast. The tar oil sands are the largest easily accessible reserve in North America, economically and geographically. They will be used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:21 PM Here's the other part of the ill-thought-out equation: If there is only 7%-10% of usable product in tar sands what happens to the other 90% of the material that comes down the pipeline??? Keep in mind that it will be polluted... Where do you put it??? How do you get it there??? Talk about billion$$$... Who pays for that clean-up when the time comes where that land is toxic and seeping into nearby water supplies??? Hey, I don't give a rat's ass if folks will be cold in Canada working at a refinery... Their comfort shouldn't over-ride common sense... Hey, there are jobs in some mighty cold places now that people are very happy to have... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:51 PM "If there is only 7%-10% of usable product in tar sands what happens to the other 90% of the material that comes down the pipeline???" My point was that gasoline is a major priority in the oil business and the super quality Texas stuff was the first to be used (depleted). We must settle for crud sometimes instead of crude. Nothing goes to waste from a barrel of crude oil. What do you think we use to pave roads? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 04:35 PM So, if the US says that a major reason that we are having higher gas prices is because we don't have the refinery capacity and you load up what we do have with even more difficult raw material to refine ***plus*** all the various byproducts, waste, etc then how is an already over-burdened system going to cope, pdq... You sound more and more like a used car salesman the further we get into this discussion... No problem seems to be your pat answer... No, I think there are monstrous problems every inch of the way... You never bothered to answer my question about the valve placement, BTW, or how many gallons of oil would spill before the length between the valves emptied... You never addressed how you would go about cleaning up a major spill in or around Kansas City or Oklahoma City... This, "no problem" attitude is what scares me... When someone who is an avowed Obama hater says no problem when real issues are brought up in relation to Keystone that tells me that there are BIG problems... Why don't you just answer the questions??? With sane and common sense answers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 04:59 PM Oh and while you are trying to wiggle out of those questions you might address the cost of refining tar sands... And how much energy it takes??? How that energy is produced??? The impact on greenhouse gases??? Who is going to pay for the clean ups??? How will the people be compensated (and by whom)for damage from spills to homes, farms and the water??? These are reasonable questions... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Feb 13 - 05:22 PM http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/amid-pipeline-debate-south-leg-of-keystone-xl-is-halfway-done/article9005708/ While you're blaming Canada for your woes, read that article in the Globe and Mail. So far you have no one to blame but yourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Feb 13 - 05:27 PM I have some Canadian oil stock that a relative bought for me about 600 years ago while I was still in high school. Every year I receive a check from the company. Not the Riches of Peru, but nice to have. Judging from the annual report the company sends out, it's conceivable that I could make a nice wad of money if this were to go through. But considering what all is involved, I don't want it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 05:39 PM The risks related to Keystone ain't about Canada... It's about the United States... Hey, I'm 100% for Canada... I'm also 100% for the United States... I think the Keystone folks have a long way to go to assure the United States that this makes sense on a common sense level and not... ... a political one... I feel like we are being steam-rolled into signing on to a future catastrophe... It's more Sarah Palin "Drill, baby, drill" noise to me until someone can answer the common sense questions I have asked here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 07:48 PM Bitumen is refined in the Gulf Coast plants now- nothing goes to waste. Why should the Trans-Canada Pipelines "Keystone" project be any more catastrophe-prone than already completed major pipelines across North America? A bitumen refinery has been proposed for Canada at a price of est. $13 billion. Since Canada doesn't need the product- it makes more sense for the consumer refineries to do the work- and their bitumen refineries are not working to capacity now. Northern Alberta is developing, with new settlements planned. The settlement at Kearl will be the first. The new Kearl center already has 5000 employees on site and the facilities needed for them. This will increase when the project goes online next year. The Kearl process does not require an upgrader (as current methods do) to make a saleable crude oil. Cogeneration is involved, the waste heat is captured to produce both electricity and steam. Land reclamation in some ways follows methods used in strip-mining coal in Illinois- it will be progressive with the cleaned overburden planted with the aid of the local First Nations. On site water storage means no water will be drawn from the Athabaska during the winter season. Tailings will be treated on site. On-going research investigations with the University of Calgary and other institutions in the province. In cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and local First Nations, a new lake (Kearl) will provide for birds and native fish, and methods are being devised to keep birds away from tailings. This will be the pattern for future mining in the oil sands area and the development of northern Alberta and Saskatchewan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:12 PM Why should it be more catastrophe-prone??? Because it has already shown to be so... Ask Michael Klink who was fired as an inspector for saying these folks cut corners... The University of Kansas has done a study and says we can expect 10 times more leaks from KS that KS says... The pipeline is also slated to go right thru heavily populated areas like Kansas City and Oklahoma City... Throw in the fact that we are told over and over that the reason that gas prices are on the rise because the refineries can't keep up and putting another 1.3M barrels on them is like stuffing a few million gallons of water into a drowned man... I mean, I appreciate ya'll givin' it the ol' college try but your answers just don't add up... Make it make sense and maybe I'll get it... Right now I'm getting people trying to blow smoke up my ass... No thanks... Try better answers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:24 PM Of the Canadian oil being imported by the U.S., approx. one-third is blended bitumen. More is included in the heavy oil fraction. Approx. 30 percent of U.S. oil imports comes from Canada. In other words, of the petroleum in pipelines from Canada, a fair amount is from the oil sands of Alberta. See 2012 Q3 Est. Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Trpe and Destination. http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/mrgynfmtn/sttstc/crdlndp Also see www.eia.gov figures |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:25 PM BTW, the United States and ***its people*** will be the ones at risk... Who is going to have a trillion $$$ set aside to make Kansas City whole after the KS busts and ruins that city forever??? I don't want to hear about the individual land owners who will suck rent checks until they die... They ain't gonna step forward... Who is??? Unless there is at least $1T in escrow to cover a bad spill then guess who will get stuck with the bill... That's right... Me and my homies... No thanks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:51 PM Listen, Q, I have no problem with the US buying ya'll's oil... That's fine with me... But when you move from that to, "we need to run a big ass pipeline thru the middle of your country over the Ogallala Aquifet" then, excuse me, I have a lot of questions... That's what this thread is really about... Not US buyin' yer oil... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 09:13 PM So...If Obama does the deal, signs off, and the pipeline gets underway, what would you think of him? Still the guy you thought he was?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 09:23 PM Well, GfinS... Ya' see... You and I are cut from different cloth... Me??? I understand politics... Ya' gotta remember that my 1st college degree was in History & Poli-Sci... You??? Jump Obama at every turn... Me??? I have not agreed with any president in my life time with the exception of Jimmy Carter... He was probably the most honest man who has ever occupied the White House... Obama??? I'd give him a solid B... I understand his decisions... I always do... I don't agree with them all... But, hey... ...for right now I don't think there is a better person on the planet to run this circus... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 09:26 PM Oh, and to bring this back into this thread... If Obama approves this ticking-time-bomb then I'll go on record right now of saying, "I disagree"... Lucky for him I am not a one-issue voter... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 10:41 PM Bobert: "You??? Jump Obama at every turn..." I wasn't 'jumping' him...just asked a question...though it is true that I just haven't been able to believe him much. Just wondering how much of his agenda, as it becomes evident, what others have surmised. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Feb 13 - 11:39 PM Something else to worry about. The Canadians aren't responsible, btw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 13 - 01:20 AM The Hanford nuclear plant comes from an era when not really enough was understood about nuclear power. And it more than amply demonstrates the problems that can develop when our ability overreaches our knowledge. Not just Americans, but everybody. I know quite a bit about the problems extant at the Hanford reservation because I worked as a radio news reporter for a year in Pasco, Washington, just a short distance down the Columbia River from Hanford. It's one helluva mess and a major clean-up problem. Among mitigating circumstances, Hanford is a patch of desert. But it is nervously close to the river. Let's not risk another ecological disaster in such a sensitive area as the Oglala aquifer. A lot of people, not just Americans, might go hungry if one of the world's major agricultural areas goes oil-sodden. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 13 - 09:19 AM Just more evidence that when people tell you to not worry your pretty head you better start worrying... I have not heard any straight talk from the Drill-Baby-Drill-Pipeliners... You ask them questions and they either ignore you or respond by attacking Obama for this or that... Normal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Feb 13 - 07:18 PM Not much point in posting for those who refuse to look at the maps and are unaware of the current Keystone pipeline in operation, which runs from Manitoba south to Steele City, Kansas with forks to St. Louis, and to Cushing, Oklahoma. The Keystone proposal would cut from where it turns east to Manitoba, south through Montana and South Dakota to link up at Steele City with the current route. The current route cuts across the northeastern corner of the Ogalala Aquifer. The new route map shows the same Ogalalla exposure, but a diversion, already approved by Nebraska, would skirt to the east of the Aquifer. From the present Cushing terminus, the line would be extended to the Gulf Coast refineries. Note- the Cushing terminus connects with smaller lines, not shown. http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://missouri-news.org Neither the current or proposed Keystone goes anywhere near Kansas City, but other, albeit smaller, lines operated by other companies do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 13 - 08:12 PM So, I guess what you are saying, Q, is that Keystone feeds pipelines that go into Kansas City... Seems to me like Keystone does a lot of that... Given the number of leaks so far in just Keystone alone, the U of Kansas study that predicts almost 10 times more leaks than Keystone says will occur, the proximity to water sources, population centers that this entire idea warrants one shit load of thought rather than the emotional crap that we are getting from the pipeliners about how its going to produce jobs, etc... That's all we are asking here... Let's explore the very real dangers, lets have in place contingency plans if there is a major spill, lets have an escrow account for clean up, evacuation... BP taught us one thing... You let Big Oil do what it pleases and it's "buyer beware"... Sanity here is not too much to ask... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Feb 13 - 08:56 PM Not discussed to any extent in the press is that American crude oil would enter the Keystone XL segments at Baker, Montana, and Cushing Oklahoma. Like all new pipelines, the Keystone is designed to carry batches of different composition, from various producers, as needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 13 - 09:22 PM That doesn't change anything here, Q... What the pipeliners want us to believe is that: 1. Don't worry, be happy... 2. The spills will be minimal... (U of K disagrees) 3. This will be good for the US... (Why??? Becoming Canada's "oil boy"???) 4. There are valves that protect you... (After how many gallons on nasty-ass crude leak??? 20,000 gallons??? 40,000 gallons??? 200,000???) 5. It's not going near the Ogallala Aquifer... (not true...) 6. All the byproducts/waste will be recycled.... (building roads out of toxic waste still poisons everything below...) 7. We need that oil... (Geeze, what ever happened to renewables??? Oh, that's right... They have been demonized as some kind of socailism...) 8. This will help the US get more oil... (No, it won't... We will still have to bid against China to get one drop of it...) 9. We are responsible... (In the coming week the suit against BP will begin... BP has spent hundreds of millions of $$$ in PR trying to look like the good guys but, bottom line, they are way short of paying for the damage they did in the Gulf...) 10. If you disagree with us you are a socialist like Obama... (No comment but these things are being said on the blogs...) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 13 - 09:49 PM BTW, Q... I ain't tryin' to mess with you... I mean, yer a good guy... With living comes wisdom... I have made enough mistakes in my life to smell 'um when they are tryin' to sneak back into my life... I kinda like to attribute wisdom as the "Holy Spirit" His-self... "Don't put your hand on that hot stove, Bobert..." Gotcha, dude... This pipeline is going to present the US with one shit load of risk and for what??? For what??? Really, nothing at all... Not for the US, that is... Just risk for US... Think about it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Feb 13 - 01:45 PM Bobert: "I have not heard any straight talk from the Drill-Baby-Drill-Pipeliners... You ask them questions and they either ignore you or respond by attacking Obama for this or that... Normal..." "Drill-Baby-Drill-Pipeliners..."..just ask Obama. He's the one who's going to sign it..."You ask them questions and they either ignore you or respond by attacking..."....Transparency rears its hypocritical head again!! That is either true or false.... but,................. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Feb 13 - 02:11 PM The corrent, operational Keystone cuts across the NE corner of the Ogalalla Aquifer. The new proposal, OKeyed by Nebraska, almost misses it. Take a look at this map (the black and white one) wwhich shows current pipelines carrying Canadian petroleum (including batches from the Alberta bitumen sands) in the U.S. The proposed Keystone extensions offer a more direct route to the Gulf an replace older, slower routes. http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf or just google U. S. Oil Pipelines and enlarge the images. NOTE:Does not include other pipelines carrying product other than crude, including chemicals. News reports ignore previous infrastructure, some of which could be more injurious to the environment than the Keystone additions. Oklahoma is heavily covered by pipelines, some of them "antique." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 25 Feb 13 - 02:43 PM 9's link... "The leaking materials at Hanford Nuclear Reservation pose no immediate risk to public safety or the environment because it would take perhaps years for the chemicals to reach groundwater, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Friday." WTF does this yahoo work for? Or should I assume the quote is placed in such a context as to make him look like a yahoo?... I certainly hope that is the case. "The declining waste levels in the six tanks were missed because only a narrow band of measurements was evaluated, rather than a wider band that would have shown the levels changing over time, Inslee said. "It's like if you're trying to determine if climate change is happening, only looking at the data for today," he said. "Perhaps human error, the protocol did not call for it." Ahhh... "human error"? Unacceptable answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 13 - 03:47 PM Jay Inslee is one of the good guys. Read a bit further. So far, nearby monitoring wells haven't detected higher radioactivity levels.The article goes on to say that the leaking tanks do not AS YET pose a health risk. BUT—it's necessary that we get cracking on it right away. And that's what Inslee is concerned about. By the way, the article goes on to say The federal government built the Hanford facility at the height of World War II as part of the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. The remote site produced plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, and continued supporting the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal for years.So, just whose responsibility is it, anyway? Governor Jay Inslee and the State of Washington? Or the Federal Government? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 13 - 03:51 PM Let me make it a little clearer: Governor Inslee is concern about what the Federal Government is going to do about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 25 Feb 13 - 04:00 PM gnu, the point I was making is that something bad is happening in the US that can't be blamed on Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 13 - 04:11 PM That's my concern, Don... With the current push to shut down as much of the federal government as possible the folks who would normally be reviewing plans, monitoring inspecting infrastructure just ain't gonna to be there... "Trust us" is what we always hear at the beginning and then we have the BP oil spill where we did just that... Coal mines, the same... Bridges, the same... So far what has been built of the KS pipeline, the same... Corner cutting... Whistle blowers being intimidated, and/or fired... The fact that the major pipeline barely enters the area over the Ogalalla Aquifer doesn't make me feel any more comfortable... The fact we have other crumbling infrastructure isn't a good argument for building this pipeline... What I feel is happening is that the sane people are being bullied to allow for the insane to have their way with our nation without having to answer the tough questions... I've posed at least a dozen here and not really gotten back any answers that are credible enough to pull the string on this project... I think we need a year cooling off period during which time the drill-baby-drill-pipeliners can try to make a better case... Right now, other than calling folks who oppose it elitists and socialists, Keystone has NOT made that case... "Stupid is as stupid does"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 13 - 04:35 PM You've nailed it, Bobert. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Feb 13 - 06:37 PM Do you REALLY think for a moment that this or ANY recent administration is going to not do the pipeline due to environmental reasons over the political/economic reasons????? Wishful, but naive thinking! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 13 - 07:12 PM Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, GfinS, but for different reasons... Obama still believes that pragmatism is a viable strategy and so he gives stuff too quickly hoping that will get him something in return... He hasn't gotten much from the Republicans... Actually, he hasn't gotten anything... Obama also is overly concerned about pissing off the BIG monied people because they go out and spend a lot of that $$$ to bust on him... Me??? I'd tell to go screw themselves... This pipeline is the wrongest thing since the word "wrong" was invented... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 13 - 09:55 PM Richard Armour, the American poet, once observed that politics has too long been concerned with Right or Left instead of right or wrong. Beijing air quality. Rather than fracking, digging up coal, building nuclear plants that produce lethal waste that lasts for millennia, and building pipelines to transmit oil, all sources of, or related to, energy that adds to the earth's already polluted atmosphere and water, we should put that money into renewable resources, such as solar and wind power. Or there are several ways of harnessing the tides and ocean currents that would produce abundant energy and not pollute the planet. And an engineer friend of mine has come up with a very viable, relatively inexpensive, and idiot simple scheme that would produce vast quantities of electrical energy at virtually no cost after initial installation. You can lead a person to obvious truths, but you can't make him think. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 26 Feb 13 - 05:41 AM "And an engineer friend of mine has come up with a very viable, relatively inexpensive, and idiot simple scheme that would produce vast quantities of electrical energy at virtually no cost after initial installation." I am all ears, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM Yeah, all one has to do is read about the civil trial of BP in regards to the Gulf oil spill to see the validity of the anti-pipeline folk's arguments... Or the Hanford nucleaar facility's issues... Yet while the pipe-liners won't offer answers to those of us who oppose the pipeline this doesn't stop them from parroting their simplistic talking points... "It will create jobs!!!" So what??? So would putting $100B out there for block grants that could be used by towns all across the country to fix bridges, build senior centers, fix schools, repave bad roads, etc, etc... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Feb 13 - 03:00 PM gnu and Don: ""And an engineer friend of mine has come up with a very viable, relatively inexpensive, and idiot simple scheme that would produce vast quantities of electrical energy at virtually no cost after initial installation." Tesla, all over again....but his technology was snuffed..by who?..Kennicott Copper Rockefeller, and Carnegie...Why?...Look at all the money made on copper(wiring), railroads and the banks. As I posted before...do you think the environmental issue will trump the big money guys????..(see my earlier posts on this thread). Next, and related.......and Obama campaigned promising no influence peddling?? Cut and paste, from Washington Examiner: President Obama's reorganized campaign operation is selling access to the president in return for big donations, according to the New York Times. The group 'Organizing for Action' is a reorganized version of President Obama's 'Organizing for America' campaign juggernaut – now a tax-exempt "advocacy" group where federal contribution limits don't apply. According to the Times, wealthy donors who give $500,000 or more get to join the group's "national advisory board" which allows them to attend quarterly meetings with the president "along with other meetings at the White House." The group's executive director Jon Carson explained to donors recently that the organization's goal is to "change the conventional wisdom" on issues such as climate change, guns, and immigration. Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter! From the Times story: There should be "as much of a price to pay if you tick off the gun violence people" as there is for angering the N.R.A., Mr. Carson said, according to those people. "Let's build an organization that means that Republicans are embarrassed to have climate change deniers running for office." Here's the link..but it doesn't work with the "blue clicky': (From Yahoo search results) Obama selling White House access to wealthy donors who ... The group 'Organizing for Action' is a reorganized version ... according to the New York Times. The group 'Organizing for Action' is a ... washingtonexaminer.com/obama-selling-white-house-access... - Cached GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Feb 13 - 03:13 PM ..a better link on the story... Whadya' think?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 26 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM Okay, gnu, here it is. Doug Johnson, one time guitar student, and table partner over many cups of coffee in a University District restaurant, rather enjoyed science fiction, and as an engineer, he tried to come up with technologies that would actually work. How to supply cheap, continuous electrical power for a manned base on the moon. He noted that Native Americans in the Southwest had a unique method for refrigeration. This works best, he said, in a desert area with fairly extreme temperature changes between day and night. And on the moon, of course, those temperature changes would be very extreme. Put a heavy blanket or other insulating covering over a patch of ground several days in a row, shielding it from the sun, then take it off at night and let any heat it absorbed radiate away. Repeat this drill for a while and you wind up with a patch of ground that, Doug tells me, is cold enough so that the Native Americans could make something very similar to ice cream! Doug started sketching rapidly on restaurant paper napkins as the explained what he had in mind. "Now," sez Doug, "suppose you develop the idea. Take a really large area, install rails on either end of it, and bury a mesh of pipes containing a fluid just under the ground, running back and forth from one side to the other. Along the halfway line, install turbines that the fluid must pass through. Then cover half the area with an insulating sheet of some kind. Fiberglass, whatever. You mount this sheet on the rails. During the day it covers half of the area. Come nightfall, it moves to the other half of the area. What happens is that you wind up with two areas side by side, one of which is extremely hot, having absorbed the sun's heat during the day, adjacent to an area that is frosty cold, having radiated what heat it contains into the cold night sky. The hot fluid rushes through the turbines producing electricity, then cools down, runs back through the pipes to be reheated again. "Electrical power. With no charge except initial installation of the system and whatever maintenance it may need. "This would work like Gangbusters on the moon where the temperature changes are very extreme, but it would also work quite well in any, say, desert or prairie area, where the temperature changes between day and night are quite wide. "Pretty neat, huh!?" We were just slinging ideas around for inclusion in science fiction stories, but as an engineer, Doug assured me that it would work very nicely, even here on earth. I'm pretty sure he didn't patent the idea. Don Firth P. S. I put the idea out there, but I'm also open to any critiques of the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 13 - 04:07 PM The $$$ for access story was debunked this morning on the CBS morning show... But, hey??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Feb 13 - 06:54 PM I'll wait till a few more sources carry the story...a LITTLE more reliable than CBS. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 13 - 07:19 PM What, like FOX??? And... ...100... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Feb 13 - 11:51 PM I checked them and some other sources....not sure as of yet...you got something from CBS?..post link..I'll look. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Feb 13 - 05:43 AM Lessons for Bill McKibben's Followers Perils of the Keystone XL Pipeline Confront Obama by RALPH NADER Article here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Feb 13 - 06:07 AM Say NO to XL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Mar 13 - 11:43 AM 999, I went to your link....did you notice the first article, BEFORE the pipeline article?????...Kissinger blocking access to his papers?? Duhh...I wonder why...(well not really)...They would reveal EXACTLY what I posted about the deal he made with Saudi Arabia about the bonds and oil.....(see my post further back)...The 'environmental' issue is just a diversion, from the real deal.....and you heard it first on Mudcat! Bobert, Given the track record of both CBS and Bob Woodward, I think I'd go with Woodward. Bob wrote the story for the NYT...along with others you might be interested in....check out his reporting on Obama and the 'sequestration'...it might be an eye opener! ..but then. I'm sure everybody is 'wrong' ..except those who 'report' only what you might be inclined to believe....according to the party line's talking points!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 13 - 05:12 PM I donno what's wrong with Bob Woodward, GfinS, but he has developed a bad case of COMS (cranky old man syndrome)... Go to WaPo and read the stuff there on him... Hey, we all know that Obama is a private guy... He don't wine and dine folks... He likes his quiet evenings and spends most of them reading... Does this sound like a guy who is inviting donors into his home at night??? Woodward has lost it... He just has... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Mar 13 - 07:13 PM State Department has no objections (news report today). Now get on with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 13 - 11:50 PM State Department doesn't have any scientists on staff... Bad move all around... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Mar 13 - 03:06 AM Bobert: "Woodward has lost it... He just has..." Why??...Because he said the king is wearing no clothes?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Mar 13 - 03:08 AM I think the Republicans thought the same thing....about the time of Watergate. Democrats turn! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Mar 13 - 08:12 AM State Department approves XL. I am underwhelmed. Let's think here, people; State Department focus is on keeping good relations with as many foreign states as possible, not predicting possible environmental disasters. And as Bobert has noted, State is not where scientific expertise lies. Further, I have heard that cameras were put in some of the pipelines already laid--and these cameras saw the sky through the pipeline. Not good, to say the least. I'm checking on the source of this story. Yes, there will be refining jobs. But some people along the route of XL have already lost their livelihoods through losing their land by eminent domain. And I understand that some Indians in Canada already have a higher incidence of cancer to problems caused by proximity to the oil sands projects. Is this so? And anybody counting on jobs due to XL should realize that the construction jobs are temporary--and will overwhelmingly disappear when XL is completed. While the environmental damage caused by laying the line is permanent. As Bobert also noted, not one drop of this oil will go to the US unless we outbid China etc. It's all oil for the world market--despite the fact that it's Canadian and US territory which is being ripped up for XL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Mar 13 - 08:14 AM "due to problems caused" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 13 - 08:28 AM Here's the one piece of algebra that doesn't work for Keystone supporters and for which they have zero answers... Keystone risk for USA = 100% Keystone rewards for the USA = 0% When the drill-baby-drill crown get around to solving that equation then let me know... Right now, they are just trying to shove it down our throats... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Mar 13 - 03:54 PM Enough of "America is the center of the fucking universe" bullshit. Canada stands to lose as much. It is not all about the USA as much as you may think it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Mar 13 - 03:57 PM BTW, WTF is the EPA doing other than sitting on its ASS and harassing small business people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 13 - 04:57 PM It ain't about the US being the center of the universe, Brucie... Let's reverse roles here... Let's say that it was the United States who had all this tar sand and it wanted to build a pipeline thru Canada and over your aquifer to a port where China would take delivery??? You'd think it mighty arrogant of the United States thinking that it could come thru your country with a certainty of many, many leaks which did nothing more for Canada than provide a few thousand temporary jobs and lease money for the property owners over which this thing was built... As for our EPA, it has been strangled by the Republicans over the last 8 years... I have two close friends, one of whom is well know at the Getaway, who have been very pissed at just how the right wing has stopped them from doing their jobs... And keep in mind, the folks at C-PAC at 100% behind shutting the EPA down entirely...l B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 02 Mar 13 - 05:53 PM "...to a port where China would take delivery??? Port Arthur, Texas, is on the Gulf of Mexico so there is clear sailing to the Atlantic Ocean. China is on the northwestern side of the Pacific Ocean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Mar 13 - 05:59 PM Then tell your congress and president you don't want the pipeline. One way or other, the pipeline will be built. I'd rather it went straight to the west coast of Canada. The Chinese could buy it from there. And Canadians could hold it up longer than you will be able to. Your EPA is a joke, worldwide. It is no wonder your friends are pissed. They fucking well should be. The EPA has screwed small business and continues to do so. It now sleeps with BIG business. Environmental Protection Agency: three lies for the price of one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Mar 13 - 06:15 PM If the EPA sucks, there is a good reason for it. Back in the days of Ronnie Reagan, "the Gipper" gutted the regulatory agencies by appointing industry flacks to the agencies instead of regulators. He did that with all of them, which is why the country is in the mess it's in. Efforts to restore their effectiveness is chronically blocked by Congress. It's commonly referred to as "putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 13 - 08:26 PM Yup, you might as well let the Koch brothers run it... It's messed up already... What more could they do??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Mar 13 - 11:15 PM I can't believe you guys don't get it! This shit was decided quite a while ago..and I've been turning you onto what it's about. To facilitate this Rockefeller assured Clinton the Presidency, is Clinton agreed to push through NAFTA..before Clinton was even running!...and voila, Canada and the U.S. were setting the stage. With it came a 60/40 trade import and export agreement with the two countries. The environmental stuff NEVER was a consideration!!..even when Carter put the expanded drilling ban into place. It's all about the trade agreement with Saudi Arabia...we buy their oil..they buy our bonds...and that is also the reason the Mideast is in warring turmoil. ...the region MUST be too screwed up to 'honor' the agreement...or should I say, it must be UN-stabilized..so we can drill here...and they are stuck with all those worthless bonds...by their 'no longer in place government'. We done 'em dirty...it was planned before Obama was president. It would have gone down, no matter who was elected. Only the duped dopes think there was any other way. I've called this shit accurate, BEFORE IT HAPPENED, on quite a few subjects, for quite a while..you'd think by now, that you'd listen up. ...but NO-O-O-O-O-OOO, You've gotta still think stupidly along party lines....ain't that so, Bobert? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Mar 13 - 02:06 AM Typo correction. This one is correct. I can't believe you guys don't get it! This shit was decided quite a while ago..and I've been turning you onto what it's about. To facilitate this Rockefeller assured Clinton the Presidency, if Clinton agreed to push through NAFTA..before Clinton was even running!...and voila, Canada and the U.S. were setting the stage. With it came a 60/40 trade import and export agreement with the two countries. The environmental stuff NEVER was a consideration!!..even when Carter put the expanded drilling ban into place. It's all about the trade agreement with Saudi Arabia...we buy their oil..they buy our bonds...and that is also the reason the Mideast is in warring turmoil. ...the region MUST be too screwed up to 'honor' the agreement...or should I say, it must be UN-stabilized..so we can drill here...and they are stuck with all those worthless bonds...by their 'no longer in place government'. We done 'em dirty...it was planned before Obama was president. It would have gone down, no matter who was elected. Only the duped dopes think there was any other way. I've called this shit accurate, BEFORE IT HAPPENED, on quite a few subjects, for quite a while..you'd think by now, that you'd listen up. ...but NO-O-O-O-O-OOO, You've gotta still think stupidly along party lines....ain't that so, Bobert? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 13 - 07:31 AM Well, GfinS, I don't doubt that with all the power that BIG OIL has that they won't get their stenking pipeline... I also don't doubt that with all the obstructionism that the Republicans will box Obama into either approving it with a few strings or approving it to get something in return from the Republicans but if this were to be voted on today in an up-and-down vote in the Senate that it would be a very close vote with the majority of the Dems voting "no" and every Republican voting "yes"... Do you disagree??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Mar 13 - 01:59 PM PDQ and Bert, We are not talking about any oil but the dirtiest of all, the tar sands. Why transport that at all? The U.S. doesn't use it, it gets exported and the energy companies get rich. In the meantime, it if is the safest form of transport, we are in big trouble. It's not about shipping oil that is in US reserves. It's about transporting oil across the U.S. which is not safe at all regardless of the safety of other transport means. If they don't build a pipeline, than tar sands oil will remain in the ground where it belongs. If you think that pipelines won't be compromised then you are truly naive and have bought the oil industry propaganda. I repeat, "game over!" The pollution from exhaust pipes and chimneys are only a small portion of the problem unless you ignore what happened in the Gulf Coast. Don't think for a moment that this pipeline will be maintained without spillage. Safety controls have never really been in place by the major oil companies in the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Mar 13 - 02:19 PM I deduce from the above that there is a chance some Mudcatters might possibly not approve of XL. If my wild guess is correct, I hope said Mudcatters are doing more than just rambling on about it on Mudcat. Those of us who oppose it should at least write pointed e-mails to our representatives--and to President Obama, emphasizing in no uncertain terms that we are his strongest supporters, we are bitterly disappointed in the stance of the government so far; this goes directly against why we worked for and re-elected him--and that if he cares about his legacy he should do all in his power to stop the northern portion of XL. Otherwise part of his place in history will be that he OK'd a disastrous idea--when , not if, the leaks, spreading pollution, terrorist attacks, etc. come, he will be held to blame. Jan and I will certainly be doing more than posting on Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 13 - 04:07 PM Ron, I agree with you. But some of us ARE writing to our representatives (e-mail and snail-mail), making phone calls, and signing petitions--and generally campaigning--in addition to making our views known here on Mudcat AND other forums (fora?). Don't make the mistake of assuming that Mudcat is ALL everybody here does. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Mar 13 - 10:44 PM Glad to hear you are doing what needs to be done, Don. My observation certainly wasn't aimed at you. But it seems there are some people here who spend a awful lot of time ranting--and there's no evidence they go beyond it. Ranting here is unfortunately not the most effective approach to the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 13 - 09:03 AM I've fired off more than a few letters myself... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:11 PM Particularly those of us who supported Obama through either working for him, financial contributions, or both should make our views known. Especially since, amazingly enough, the begging by the Democratic National Committee and other various groups supporting him continues. Jan and I get begging e-mails and regular mailings from such groups virtually every day. We make it clear what our conditions are for any more support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:18 PM I take it that those who oppose the pipeline support fracking and deep Gulf drilling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:20 PM No, Q, and your incendiary remarks make precisely no sense. Congratulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:46 PM Just pointing out the obvious alternatives, Ron. Ripping up the subsurface formations seems to be proceeding rapidly as an acceptable alternative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:47 PM Well, Barack Obama just nominated MIT scientist Ernest Moniz for Secretary of Energy. The guy seems to be pro-fracking and pro-Nuclear. Perhaps this is just another plot by those wascally WepubWiccans? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:57 PM I was going to put this on the joke thread, but it ain't funny. "The fiscal cliff simplified This puts things into a much better perspective. Lesson # 1: * U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 * New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 * Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000 Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget: * Annual family income: $21,700 * Money the family spent: $38,200 * New debt on the credit card: $16,500 * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 * Total budget cuts so far: $38.50 Got It ????? OK now, Lesson # 2: Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling: Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do, raise the ceilings, or remove the shit? " I rec'd that in an email and figured that along with the XL Pipeline folks would like to say something about this, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:01 PM Some deep-sea drilling is necessary. But the precautions have to be better than BP's. Or don't you agree, Q? Fracking: it's not at all clear the benefits outweigh the costs--especially since some costs last forever. Areas that endorse fracking may well find that when the oil runs out, so will the oil firms--leaving behind a landscape forever changed--and possibly devastated. Or is that also just peachy with you, Q? After all, you don't have to live there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:04 PM Some of you just plain don't get it!!!...This scam was decided more than 3 decades ago!! All the letter writing isn't going to do jack shit! Do you actually think your 'letters' are addressed to people who have the remotest inclination to represent YOU?? Sooner or later, you might get a clue...all you have to do, is forget about the lying speeches and party rhetoric...and watch it all unfold. Shit, you'd think this was patently obvious, by now.....it has NOTHING to do with 'party politics'...NOTHING!!!! You're pissing up a rope! The delusion is, that the public is thinking that it's Democrats vs. Republicans. This shit was decided BEFORE even Clinton took office!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:07 PM By the way...GREAT POST, 999!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:27 PM GfS--go back to your Ludlum books, and please let the thinking people around here handle this. But be sure to tell us when the sky is falling again. Your conspiracy theories are always a lot of fun--even if they might just have only a tenuous connection with reality. Something tells me you didn't vote for Obama anyway--so your views are not likely to carry much weight compared with those of us who are still getting begging letters from the DNC, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:31 PM It's amazing, thanks to the wild-eyed partisans on both sides--'drill, baby drill' on one hand and Leftist conspiracy theories on the other-- how easy it is to be a moderate around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:32 PM Ron, go back to your delusions. The DNC and the RNC are both bought and paid for. Your 'hopes and changes' are just that.. you 'Hope' and go through 'Changes'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 04 Mar 13 - 02:00 PM Just a few days ago on our ABC affiliate radio station, we heard the "the State Department had dropped objections to the Keystone Pipeline". They described it as "a 1700 mile oil pipeline taking tar sand oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas gulf". They also said "there is no indication when construction will begin". This is why the American people are essentially clueless about most important issues. The pipeline is up and operationg all the way from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma and oil is being sent east to major refineries in central Illinois. Everyting is going just fine. The last secrtion is about half complete and oil will reach the Port Arthur area by (est) September of this year. We should be able to sue the Media for malpractice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Mar 13 - 02:19 PM Q: "I take it that those who oppose the pipeline support fracking and deep Gulf drilling." Absolutely not! I support the development of non-polluting alternative energy sources. And there are a LOT of them out there that damned few people are taking advantage of. And certainly not the entrenched power companies. As a friend of mine once put it, "We'll have widespread use of solar energy when the power companies figure out how to run a sunbeam through a meter!" Wind can be harnessed most easily via wind turbines, but there are other ways as well. There are several different ways the sun's energy output can be utilized. And we haven't even talked about tidal power yet. And how about the power that can be derived from the inexorable force of ocean currents? There are ways of tapping into these tremendous, and essentially free and ongoing energy sources. There are a number of ways these things can provide non-polluting and virtually unlimited energy. Continuing to pollute our planet by burning fossil fuels is not only short-sighted and short-lived, it's economically unsustainable. Even if, for the time being, it IS profitable to certain people. Fossil fuels are getting harder and more expensive to find (drilling in the arctic ocean or miles down in the Caribbean), and generally dirtier and dirtier (e.g., tar sands). And fracking pollutes ground water that people need for drinking and irrigation, and in some places it causes clusters of local earthquakes! What do we do when we've use all the fossil fuel up? I mean, there is not that much of it left. We've used up the easily accessible stuff. Don Firth P. S. And Goofball, my neighbor's yappy little Yorkshire terrier is out in her front yard barking its fool head off again. Why don't you join him? After all, you make almost as much sense as he does! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Mar 13 - 02:49 PM You should join your Yorkshire, and take him for a walk....after all, you don't seem to have the ability to tell the truth...remember this recent post of yours?: "I will no longer engage this creature in discussion." Is it lack of self control...or just that you have to compulsively make stuff up as you go along?..and spin the rest? Don't bother replying....you'd only be making yourself more of a liar! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Mar 13 - 02:49 PM pdq states the current state of the pipelines succinctly. The extensions for which permission is sought are more direct, more up-to-date and centralize control, but the current line has been operating for some time. . My post of 25 Feb. linked a map of the current extent of the line. Note: PB has some of the best leases in the Gulf, of course including part of the great reserve on which their rig disaster occurred. Look for them and their partners to re-open that reservoir within the year, or next year at the latest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Mar 13 - 03:05 PM Goofball, perhaps you'll stoke up the family brain cell for a moment and note that I said the yappie Yorkie is not mine, it's my neighbors. And I'm not discussing anything with you. Now, after that bit of static, back to our regular broadcast. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 04:01 PM Guest ( Fugitive From Sanity)--"delusions" for you is dealing with political realities rather than pining for--of whining for--a Leftist neverland. I'm afraid we don't speak the same language. Though congratulations on not falling into the gutter-- lately. At any rate, since your only language is MLJ (meaningless leftist jargon), and that's one I haven't mastered, I will leave you to your soliloquoy. Enjoy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 04:03 PM "or whining for" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Mar 13 - 04:18 PM Don Firth: "..And I'm not discussing anything with you." Thank God!!! I don't eat shit, play with shit, stuff it in my ears...or read it! Ron Davies: "...At any rate, since your only language is MLJ (meaningless leftist jargon)..." Now I'm a 'leftist'????? I think you and Don should argue about THAT one!..Leave me out of it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 13 - 07:41 PM Bottom line here is that we are being manipulated by BIG OIL todo some very stupid stuff so they can mnake BIG $$$... Fracking and the Keystone pipeline are equally stupid... We are surrounded my renewable energy and we are surrounded by obscene consumption... Yet we are scampbling to get more fracking oil and gas??? Beam me up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 13 - 07:52 PM "obscene consumption" Precisely. There are even trivial wastes of energy, which, when multiplied coast to coast in the US, mount up to something. Case in point: Nobody, repeat, nobody, needs a leaf-blower--for anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 13 - 05:33 AM Q. PDQ-- Some parts of XL are agreed to; some parts are not. What a surprise that you would try to distort the picture and imply the whole thing is a done deal. It's not. And it's fascinating that neither of you has told us how much you'd love to live in an area where there is fracking going on--I mean fracking that you can see from your houses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Mar 13 - 12:10 PM Bobert: "Bottom line here is that we are being manipulated by BIG OIL to do some very stupid stuff so they can make BIG $$$..." ...and don't you think those "BIG $$$..." have bought off the policies of the government??...Obama included....or else why would this even be a topic?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 13 - 01:01 PM My comments about fracking are directed at the apparent acceptance of the practice in the U.S., where it is developing rapidly. As a former oil company researcher, I regard fracking as a dangerous practice, in spite of advances made recently. The oil sands are a readily available resource from a limited area in Saskatchewan-Alberta, and its bitumen will be developed and shipped to consumers, whether the U.S. increases its intake (already considerable through the current pipeline to Cushing, etc.) or not. Plans for the westcoast pipeline to B. C. also should receive approval shortly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Mar 13 - 01:58 PM Q, and all others concerned with the very real environmental concerns, The concern is real...but the money, and the political expediency will disregard those issues. It was only a cover story, to appeal to the 'liberals' to hide the fact, that our suspension of drilling on federal lands was to facilitate Kissinger's 'deal' with the Saudis, in 1979. You really ought to look into that, and address that..that is where the real argument lays. But then, in reality, political parties can only make great gains, by having an ill-informed electorate! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Mar 13 - 06:00 PM The issue that the Pipeline will increase global warming radically is being buried by the news media. This is the real argument. Some scientists are getting a healthy paycheck from Energy CEO's for going against their conscience. Is Obama on that payroll? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Mar 13 - 07:25 PM Stringsinger: "Is Obama on that payroll?" Is this just NOW occurring to you??? NDAA?? Drones in the U.S.?? Crooked 'bailouts'?? Afghanistan?? The 'provisions' found inside the Obamacare disaster?? Repeated lying about Benghazi?? Lying about the 'sequester'?? Paying off cronies with taxpayer money?? 'Fast and Furious'? Virtually every campaign promise, broken? Transparency of his administration?? "Is Obama on that payroll?" \ GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Mar 13 - 07:53 PM Most of the above post consists of Right Wing allegations with no substantiation whatever. World News Daily stuff. I get WND in my e-mail every morning just to see what these people are saying. Pretty rank, hate-filled stuff. I think their main problem with President Obama, although they know it would get them in deep doo-doo if they let on, is that he's the "wrong color." With a bit of Googling, it isn't very hard to find out where this stuff comes from. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Mar 13 - 04:22 AM As usual, you turn attention away from FACTS, and make it a 'hate based observation'..and try to pump it up. Obama's deceptive history has little to do with his color, and your looking the 'other way' and blaming those who see it as what it is, is just a predisposition to custom fit your delusions into your reality, and to support that position, you attempt to pull as many people into your delusion, to perpetuate your myths...(we all know the 'other' one) Your posted history on Mudcat is loaded with your tactics of doing just that...but then, isn't that the nature of politics??? Controlling masses of people to rally around a false premise...if it wasn't politics, you'd be a 'religious zealot'....similar mindsets. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Mar 13 - 01:09 PM Q-- I can't tell you how surprised I am that you're not champing at the bit to be allowed to live where you can see fracking going on from your house. And enjoy the possible benefits to your drinking water, etc. I thought sure you were going to tell us how there is no downside whatsoever to living in the midst of a fracking area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Mar 13 - 01:58 PM Ron Davies- you need a course in remedial reading. I stated: "As a former oil company researcher, I regard fracking as a dangerous practice, in spite of advances made recently." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 06 Mar 13 - 02:00 PM I think you'll find that Q knows of which he speaks on a regular and reliable basis on a number of topics. Many herein would be wise to carefully consider especially what he says about the mining industry in spite of any dedication to other, some valid and some valid but also "pie-in-the-sky", concepts, facts and fears. Simply being right or righteous does not "make it so". At some point, reality and practicality have to be weighed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Mar 13 - 03:14 PM Q has forgot more about the business of oil than most of us will ever know, 'cept he ain't forgot it. His knowledge regarding the oil business is impressive. When he talks opinion (Harper gov't) I think he's out to lunch. When he talks oil or natural gas he's worth heeding. In that regard he doesn't let his politics get in the way of his facts. No offence to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Mar 13 - 03:43 PM "remedial reading". So you are against fracking? Yes or no? Straight answer, please. No tome necessary--no weaseling about "only in certain circumstances" or something similar. Thanks so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Mar 13 - 06:41 PM http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ri2BG2qOvCg?feature=player_detailpage Made in Canada. (Just rec'd this link from a friend.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Mar 13 - 07:29 PM Remember please that Obama has very few good choices if he wants to remain alive. There are sinister elements in right wing society that would not hesitate to execute him. The right wing almost executed FDR until the whistle was blown on the attempt by Smedley Butler and others. This is a sad commentary on how much the political system has advanced under Capitalism. Still, if he approves the Pipeline, his legacy is toast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Mar 13 - 07:29 PM 999. The Zenn car is dead, and has been for about three years. Its range of 40 miles and top speed of 40kph (25mph) was inadequate for our cities and distances. Hybrid cars seem to be the flavor of the day, and are gaining in popularity, although they are not cheap. The Zenn company now is working as a parts supplier, on a new kind of battery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Mar 13 - 11:16 PM Thanks for the info, Q. A day late and a buck short, that's me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Mar 13 - 12:50 PM Fascinating. No answer on whether Q is against fracking or not. Perhaps he doesn't believe in straight answers. Or perhaps it's awkward since he earlier suggested fracking as an alternative to XL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 13 - 03:44 PM I, for one, am against fracking, I am against tar sands oil or off-shore drilling, I am against coal, especially shipping it to China (coal fire and automobile pollution in Beijing, which gradually disperses and pollutes the whole atmosphere), and considering the accidents that have happened and the longevity and difficulty of dealing with the waste, I am against nuclear. I AM in favor of the many renewable and non-polluting energy resources that are readily available and relatively inexpensive to develop, some of which I outlined in a post above. But as I also said, "We won't have solar power until the power companies figure out how to run a sunbeam through a meter!" Or until independent entrepreneurs who know some science, and who are environmentally aware, get cracking. ======= Goofball, you wouldn't recognize an actual fact if it was staring you in the face and handing you its ID card. Most of the stuff you have been posting comes, not from the Real World, but from Right Wing and anti-Obama newsletters and web sites. High school and college teachers often use a little trick when a student submits a paper in which the writing is better than what that student normally submits. They take a sentence from the paper, type it into the Google search box, and it often takes them right to the web site the student plagiarized the paper from. And the student is busted! Sometimes, when it looks like you've actually managed to write a coherent sentence, I've used that same trick—and I've found the Right Wing or anti-Obama web site where you got it. BUSTED!! Interesting to note that you're all insults and criticism. Negative! You never seem to have any positive suggestions to make about anything ("religious zealot?" Where the hell did that come from?). You hate Obama, you hate gays, you hate Liberals, you even come on like you hate Right Wingers, even though you talk like one all the time. Why, pray tell, is that? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 07 Mar 13 - 03:55 PM Ron Davies... a remedial reading course will not help you. He posted and reposted what he said. Near as I know, he hasn't got the time or poor manners to tell you to frack off. But, if that's what you need, *I* can oblige. I'd just use a slightly different terminology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:47 PM Fracking is not only dangerous but ill-thought-out... Some folks say that the next big war will be fought over water... So here's what fracking does... It takes that water, mixes it with a bunch of secret chemicals and pumps it way deep down in the ground where most of the Earth's fresh (non-salt) water hides... Tis is playing with fire... As for Keystone??? I've already express why it is stupid for the US... Yes, good for Canada and China but bad for the US... But bottom line??? As long as we are talking about BIG gas and oil and "clean" (ha) coal we aren't talking about renewables... Winner: BIG oil, gas and "clean" coal... Loser: Everyone else... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:00 PM Wrong, gnu. You seem to have said problem regarding reading. Please read the thread again. He suggested fracking as an alternative to XL; wanted to know if we who oppose XL also oppose fracking. So he seems to contradict himself. To clear the air it is reasonable to ask him for a straight answer as to if he opposes fracking or not. No surprise however that he has somehow not found time to give a straight answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Mar 13 - 11:42 PM Here Don goes again, spouting spin again.. made up stuff, and calls it some sort of 'breaking news revelation'..I don't know what he calls it...but if he can't find a fact, he'll report nonsense, and try to create an impression completely void of logic, truth or any sense of reality!...Ummm.. now we know what he did in his 'news media days'. If they don't report real news, they make it up, and try to give the impression that it is news....as long as it delivers the desired effect....even if it's all shit. Somethings never change..... Now back to the real topic....we all know that oil has environmental issues...and all the products that is made out of it, seem to not be very bio-degradable,...so we bitch, piss and moan on our computers MADE OF PLASTIC...which is quite suitable, being as most of the whiners, who piss and moan the loudest, are all pretty plastic themselves!!...that being said, and as I've said before, the environmental issues that halted the domestic drilling was NOT because of the environmental outcry, or caribou, or spotted owls, or stinky air...that was the cover story, for the Kissinger deal, under Carter...and fuel for the 'right' to piss and moan and whine at the 'liberals'..which they did. The Mid-East in turmoil is about the oil, but not to control the Mid-east oil...but to make it completely expedient to HAVE to DRILL here...it's all bullshit, like about everything else in politics.. I don't have a say..you don't have a say. The massive corporate/government corruption machine is going to do what they want, regardless of any benefit for anyone else but themselves, their cronies and lackeys...What is so hard to understand? We have a facade of a 'liberal' President, and the only people buying his act, are rather shallow...but well meaning(sometimes) folks, who have been blinded by two things....thinking that voting for the first black man was a very hip liberal thing to do, and those who are stupid enough to not recognize that the Democraps and Repugnicunts, are bought lock, stock and barrel by the mega corporations and banks, who use the two party system to get exactly what they want..while throwing out the bones and scraps to their dedicated devotees...who actually think there is a difference....There is NO difference..only taking turns at progressing toward a totalitarian state...in which WE will be TOLD what the issues are to be..so we can argue about them, and therefore think we're 'involved'! What a crock of shit! Just look at where we've come to...and neither party's rank and file are happy...even though they have each had their turn at rooting for 'their' side....but throw cosmetic tidbits!! Are we better off than we were 4....6...8...12...20 years ago????...as both sides take turns at shredding our Constitution, and 're-interpreting' it out of existence! Just stop, and think about it..not from the 'right' or the 'left' points of view..just take a realistic, calm moment...and check it out. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 09:19 AM Me thinks that GfinS needs a Betty Ford intervention... I mean, Martha Stewart could be on TV talking about her recipe for chocolate chip cookies and poor GfinS would have to twist it into yet another Obama-hate rant... Between those rants and the "Both Sides Shuffle" (pick your key) this is like the proverbial stuck record... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:47 AM Well, Bobert..that was an in depth analysis,and great counter argument...but your response was about par for the course, of vacant 'so-called liberal' rant.....NOTHING!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:52 AM Glad you appreciated it, GfinS... The arguments have all been made... The science is in... The risks are known... The politics are being controlled by the major polluters... In other words... ...normal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Mar 13 - 12:33 PM "Just stop, and think about it..not from the 'right' or the 'left' points of view..just take a realistic, calm moment...and check it out." Well said, GfS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Mar 13 - 02:08 PM Off the topic, but since Goofball feels impelled to lie about me yet again, let me set the record straight. When I was news director at KORD in Pasco, Washington, I had nothing to do with the national news. That all came in on a feed from the ABC radio network, of which KORD was an affiliate. I was responsible for assembling and reporting the local news, and in my tenure in that position, there was little or no local political news for me to report. There was a fair amount of local news available, too much to broadcast it all, so it was my job as news director to determine what the listeners would be most interested in hearing. And I was answerable to the station manager, so that obviated any tinkering or slanting of the news on my part, even if I had wanted to. And there was no reason for me to want to. My other duties consisted of several hours a day as a disc jockey, and spending some time in the production room taping commercials and public service announcements. My broadcasting job in Seattle was as an announcer at a classical music station, play (obviously) classical music, most of which the program director selected, but some of which I was free to choose myself. I read about five minutes of news at the top of the hour, every two hours, but I didn't write that myself, I read what came in on the UPI and AP teletypes, which was what I was supposed to do. Prior to my getting my first radio job, I took an eight month training course at a broadcasting school in Seattle, during which we took classes in all aspects of being a radio or television announcer, including how to read a news story prior to airing and check it for general bullshit content. And I haven't forgotten those skills. Goofball, your above screed is merely another example of you taking things I have posted about myself and twisting them in an effort to make me look bad. In addition to being a clueless sod, Goofball, you are, as I have said before, a LIAR! And you're not even a good liar. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 08 Mar 13 - 02:31 PM As usual, Propaganda Minister Firth has posted 100% personal attack, 0% discussion of the thread topic. Surely he will say that is entirely the fault of the person he is attacking. In addition "Music" and "BS", perhaps we should have another category just for personal attacks so we can get that pollution out of the other categories and perhaps have a civilized discussion once in a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Mar 13 - 02:35 PM Pdq, you've got the wrong end of the stick. The above post is a response to Goofball's personal attack on me. DO learn to read! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 03:12 PM Here's the real deal... The Keystone supporters have never made a case to the American public as to why it is needed... They have, however, insisted that it is needed and they have called in their heavy hitters to push the thing down our throats... If they can't explain their case other than that want it then that alone makes you wonder if they have a case to be made... Lot's of folks have brought up the risks... Lots of people have brought up the fact that other than producing some temporary jobs what is the benefit for the US... Is it asking too much of Big Oil to answer the hard questions... This all reminds me of the Iraq War... Lots of misinformation and noise but not much truth... I've asked at least a half a dozen questions about the pipeline here and here we are pushing 200 posts with no answers to any of them... So, for anyone willing to stand up and be counted, will you please address the questions that have been asked??? If not then than speaks volumes about the need for this pipeline... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Mar 13 - 05:15 PM Bobert, these answers may be insufficient (so much garbage in this thread that the question is lost). None is clear-cut. 1. Predictions that the U.S. will need more energy for industry and personal use than will be available. 2. Sources of energy needed for growth- a Imports b Fracking and development of difficult oil sources c Greater dependence on coal reserves d Development of wind, water, solar energy sources as replacement formined natural resources, and consequent reduction of greenhouse gases, chemical waste, etc. e Reduction in use of energy in the home and industry I think all of us would prefer d, but it will take 50 years to develop the infrastructure. Government needs to push on this, but getting the money and public acceptance is difficult. We would have to stop involvement in senseless wars, for one. To be overcome here are the costs (admitedly short-term) to install and operate the infrastructure, training the workplace to operate the new infrastructure, the long-term lead-in time, a divided Congress whose members push local concerns without regard to the whole, public ignorance, general inertia. Blaming oil, coal, chemical and hardware industries misrepresents the situation, since much of the research into renewable energy is done in the laboratories of these same industries, many of whom have a relationship with university researchers. Remember, their object is to provide dividends, investment funds, goods, employment, amenities to us (shareholders, employees, public as a whole). PROFIT is the object, the source is immaterial. Which would you rather have- a cheap source of imported petroleum, or a landscape degraded by fracking and other methods that tear up land and resources? The oil sands bitumens are already being imported and used in U.S. refineries through a system of pipelines. Lost in all the media mis-information is the fact that the pipeline is in operation, a good percentage of U.S. imports are from the oil sands; the proposal before the government concerns partial replacement by more direct lines, and increased refinery through-put on the Gulf Coast of increased volumes (Please look at the maps- pipelines already cross parts of the Ogalalla, the extension proposed will have even less overlay). I don't think it is necessary here to go into increase of coal mining. Like fracking, it destroy too much. Reduction in use of energy stands little chance of being approved. We like the privacy of our cars, warm houses and air-conditioning, Hawaiian holidays, etc. A thread hewing to the topic of energy replacement would perhaps be better than more digression to the present one, but efficient thought processes are unknown to mudcatters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 08 Mar 13 - 06:11 PM ect: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Ron Davies - PM Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:00 PM ****************************************************** I believe his answer was sufficient. If that was the actual question with supporting explanation at the time it was asked, perhaps it would have been addressed. Now, I don't see that it needs to be addressed as I believe it was answered fully in either case. I think a big "fuck off' is in order unless someone has the good manners to debate and question without all the vague and twisting innuendo and bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 06:31 PM Okay, Q... I understand what you are saying... Here are several questions that I have asked that still need answers... 1. We are told by pdq that about 7% of the total material piped southward thru the US... When I asked what he proposed doing with the other 93% of the material he stated that it could be used to build roads... Okay, let's say it can... So here you have millions of metric tons of by-product to build roads... How are we going to get it all to where it can be used??? Put it in train cars??? Move it hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles (at what expense?) to where it can be used??? How much additional energy is this going to use??? Maybe as much as we create to begin with... 2. I don't buy into the 50 year plan... Heck, we went to the moon in 8 years after Kennedy proposed doing it... 3. I don't buy that we are getting the entire story... I think we are getting a story from those who are in business to lead US toward their products... 4. We are not having the conversations we should be having about reducing our consumption... We should be asking why it is that when we talk about renew-ables that Big Oil shouts US down??? Why can't we have that conversation... 5. We are still commuting... Why is mass transit the enemy of Big Oil... What can we do to change that conversation??? BTW, it isn't even a conversation... It is a shout down by Big Oil... 6. Why do the Keystone people make statements about leaks which are sugar-coated??? The University of Kansas has done a study on the pipeline that says that Keystone will suffer 10 times more leaks than Keystone says will occur... 7. Who pays when there is a major spill that Keystone says will never happen??? No, I'll venture a guess... The tax payers will... 8. What happens if the unthinkable happens and an entire city of region's drinking water is poisoned??? Who pays to more millions of people or to ship in clean water??? (Those are just few adult & reasonable questions I think we all have a right to ask...) 9. Why are we being stone-walled??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 08 Mar 13 - 07:14 PM "...We are told by pdq that about 7% of the total material piped southward thru the US..." Oh, for Christ's sake. I said that poor quality crude, such as the crud we buy from Venezuela, produces only about 7% gasoline unless processed by the realitive expensive catalytic cracking system. Our finest oil in the US has been largely depleted so we must accept oil that is relatively poor quality. Canadian tar sands oil has a lot of sediment. But so what. The oil engineers in Canada and the US are the best in the world. They can deal with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 07:31 PM So then, pdq, maybe you can address the rest of the question about the by-products??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 08 Mar 13 - 07:51 PM First, you claimed I used the 7% fiure in connection with the Canadian pipeline. I did not. Second, the term "by-product" refers to something that is either unwanted, unexpected or unuseable. There is little "by-product" with crude oil when treated the way we do in the US.. We make plastics, medicines, run our cars and heat our houses. After that, we make mcaddam and pave the roads. I assume the Canadian tar sands oil will have the sediment removed and the rest processed just like any other crude oil. Haw much is waste? Q should know if he is inclined to answer your question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 07:55 PM So, pdq, what happened to making roads outta the stuff??? Those were your words??? How much stuff??? How to transport stuff??? Hey, I ain't making the "roads" thing up... Now it's like you never said it??? It's here somewhere... No??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:17 PM If anyone still needs to have a look at how much this man understands about the 'business' of oil and his concern for this place we all call home, please read and then re-read the post referred to here: Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q Date: 08 Mar 13 - 05:15 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:25 PM Well, yeah, brucie... Q hit it pretty good there but... ...in saying what he said (which was 100% spot on) it doesn't move us any closer to seein' where Keystone is a good idea and that is what we are talking about here... And, of course, will Obama be bullied into approving the next and most dangerous chapter... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:57 PM Q wasn't pretty much spot on, Bobert, he nailed it. The issue (nailed by Q) is this: "Reduction in use of energy stands little chance of being approved. We like the privacy of our cars, warm houses and air-conditioning, Hawaiian holidays, etc." There will be no more reduction soon. Choices will be made by governments, often to the detriment of people. Oil and all it entails will be at the same level as food. We all 'need' it, but to what degree? Do we need it more than the kid down the block? Do we drop our standard of living so someone else can live? There are options we can choose in what Q said. The only remaining questions are which options, and which are more important to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 08 Mar 13 - 09:07 PM The problem I have is that the conversation is being led by Dick Cheney's boys and not... ...urban planners, environmentalists, folks who understand re-newables, scientists, Green-Peace, etc... If we aren't given #B then, hey, we pick #A... Q knows that... I know that... That is a lot about this discussion... Why is it that we are being ram-rodded here??? Seriously... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:00 PM Bobert, you are raising several points that need response. A little at a time, otherwise we will be covering too much at a time. Pipelines: The real question should concern the pipeline grid as a whole, not just one- Keystone- which is already mostly operational. Pipelines have been built across the country without any oversight. Each state has allowed lines that serve local or regional needs without regard to the needs of neighbor states or the country as a whole, and in many cases with little consideration except expediency. Competing companies serve their own immediate markets but mergers are bringing some of this together. Oversight? Needed, but there are constitutional problems, political agendas and personal desires in the way. The pipeline grid has developed without overall design specifications. Some lines are inadequately engineered, others are old and in need of replacement, some duplicate each other, some are designed to carry one type of product rather than a variety of batched products efficiently. Putting together worst case scenarios about this hodgepodge grid as an objection to a modern batched line, as has been done, does not help. Pipelines are the most efficient overland bulk transport method for petroleum and chemical products. Petroleum transported in pipelines. Very little is good only for road metal. Many chemical products that go into our plastics are derived from heavy petroleum products, in fact the light paraffinic crudes are less useful in many applications. Canadian oil sands bitumens are upgraded on site, so no unusable product is put into the pipelines. The Kansas study is based on the worst case scenarios of the oldest and worst lines in the country. It has little applicability to modern barched lines. The points made by the authors have been ludicrously oversimplified. Tired tonight. Bobert raised other points that need discussion. Maybe tomorrow. On his side is the fact that there is a complete lack of any effort toward the development of government policies that encourage renewable, efficient energy, or even to discuss the problems that will be involved in a gradual changeover (there are many, including education and restructuring of the workforce). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:23 PM Did you ever think you might be ignoring the thoughts of a good man? You are forcing me into a position of agreeing with Q. He likes Harper. I don't. That said, he has stated the best over-all view of our predicament I have ever read. Unless we face a few facts real soon we are fucked as a planet. About 40 years ago I was in the company of a very bright [brilliant] engineer and very bright [brilliant] physicist. They are still my friends today. (How bright? One with a friend of his did the mathematical calculations that predicted the existence of black holes, and the other worked out why we spent seven days and nights in the Sierra Nevadas with less than a quart of grass and came out with much less than a pint. He incidentally discovered why our view of things is occasionally skewed. Think muons and time here. (Muons were discovered later.) Between them they discovered why solar energy had problems: it would have required more available copper than existed on the planet to light the city of LA. The world has to 'work', but when we think that, we have to understand what that means. If we see it as an organism, it must be fed and warmed, at least to the degree it can reproduce. If we take away either of the two, that's it--doesn't matter which--that's it. Given that neither can be done away with, we not only need both, but we also require both. Ipso facto, or in Montrealese, that's it, that's all. Anyway, regardless of the politics of all this, there remains the reality. It is this: we keep the status quo and accept that at least some percentage of the world will have to stop consuming [die] or we reduce our consumption. In the parlance, that's it, that's all. Now, fuck Cheney and all that, who ya gonna believe? The banks or Q? The few bucks I have are on Q. TI, TA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:26 PM Cross posted, Q. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Mar 13 - 05:57 AM Don Frothing: "Off the topic, but, Off the topic, but Off the topic, but..." GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:51 AM I appreciate Q's knowledge, brucie, and I'm not disagreeing with him... I think we are on the same page on this issue... We each believe that there are lots of questions that are being ignored... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 09 Mar 13 - 10:58 AM Sorry, Bobert. Probably me misreading the situation. The topic itself leads to emotional responses because what is really at stake is our existence as humane, compassionate beings. I am not attacking you because come the end of the day I know where your heart's at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:47 PM Well, well, well (yes, intended; you'll see)... it appears the following snippet from an email I just read clearly lays the blame for all this crap at Canada's doorstep. The first oil well in the world was - "... in 1858 when the Canadian entrepreneur James Miller Williams (1818-1890) (Fig. 1) drilled and successfully produced oil in the township of Enniskillen be- tween Lake Erie and Lake Huron near the town later named Oil Springs in what is now Southwest Ontario." Ahhh... sorry about that, eh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:01 PM Yep, a Canadian first, but Oil City, PA, quickly followed. Before oil wells, however, tar deposits were mined for thousands of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Mar 13 - 06:54 PM 200!...and the deal is still too obvious... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:40 PM I first learned about tar pits in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Not much different from this thread at times in fantasy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:49 PM High gas prices, this, and political expediency....guess why they'll drill ...and it's all been for the benefit of the bankers and big corporations. The environment doesn't matter to these folks....except to bullshit you! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Mar 13 - 01:12 AM Bitch and complain, bitch and complain, endlessly bitch and complain. But never a positive suggestion. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:00 AM The weak accuse others of their own ways. Thank you for being so clear. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 27 May 13 - 08:55 PM http://desmog.ca/2013/05/23/beaver-lake-cree-judgment-most-important-tar-sands-case-you-ve-never-heard |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: JohnInKansas Date: 11 Nov 13 - 03:23 AM Illinois AG and neighbors sue over humongous heaps of 'petcoke' By Lisa Riordan Seville Investigative Reporter, NBC News 09 November 2013 Along the banks of Chicago's Calumet River, growing piles of black dust up to five stories high – a byproduct of oil refining called "petcoke" -- have sparked two lawsuits that allege the towering mounds pose grave threats to the environment and people of the city's Southeast side. "When the wind picks up and there's a little breeze you're getting black dust everywhere -- you can't even open your back windows," said Lilly Martin, 50, a plaintiff in one of the suits who lives just blocks from one of the piles. Martin said the dust turns her pool water black and forces her to power wash her house weekly. But her real concern is for the health of her 21-year-old daughter, who suffers from asthma. "She can't even go out and breathe the fresh air," she said. "Where do we go if it's all in the area here?" The granular, coal-like material -- a carbon-rich residue from crude oil refining called petroleum coke, but often referred to as "petcoke" -- is used as an industrial fuel and has long been stored in open lots in Midwestern cities. There is little U.S. market for petcoke because it burns "dirty," producing more emissions than coal. But as refineries across the country have begun processing more heavy, carbon-rich crude oil from Canada's "oil sands" fields, they have likewise been producing more petcoke. And though American entrepreneurs, led by the Koch brothers, have discovered a booming market for petcoke in China, the piles have grown larger. … [End Quote] The full article runs about 3 pages as text, and is too long to post it all here. The picture at the link is also rather impressive. Reading the complete report is recommended. It does appear to make clear why the "Pipeline" would be profitable to Koch, Canada, and China, but of little benefit and substantial probable harm to the US. It also seems to show that not all the environmental impacts reasonably expected for transporting Canadian crude across large tracts of environmentally critical parts of the US to dump all the waste byproducts in Texas have been revealed – as yet. Another thing to worry about? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: kendall Date: 11 Nov 13 - 07:07 AM The wise people of South Portland Maine just killed a proposal to bring that shit into Maine. It would pass right by Sebago lake, the water supply for the whole greater Portland area. One leak and it's curtains for this area. That crap is full of sand! any fool knows what that will do to a pipeline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 13 - 09:45 AM There is no earthy reason for this pipeline... Not only would it pose a great danger to our environment and water but it is a very bad deal for the US as the US gets 100% of the risk and very little of the rewards... The only American who will profit will be those who get rent checks for having the pipeline traverse their land and a after the construction only a few thousand permanent jobs... No to stupidity... B~ |
