 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline?
|
|
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Feb 13 - 06:07 AM Say NO to XL |
|
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,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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 08:12 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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? |
